Origins of Homosexuality

[Gavin83]

I dont mean to offend anyone with this question, but I was interested and I could think of no better place to ask. Hetrosexual and gay sexual preferences are considered biological while lesbians and a few more extreme preferences tend to be considered more psychological. So, where does Asexuality fall, the nature or nurture side of the border?

*Edit* - Topic title changed.

[Guest]

...Why do you classify a gay preference as biological but a lesbian preference as psychological? Aren't they the same thing?

Anyway, there's a huge debate at http://www.asexuality.org/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2374

[Gavin83]

Ive just heard many theories that say female homosexuality is more a mixture of childhood experiences than biological means, while male homosexuality is actually in the genes. However, both forms of homosexuality can probabily be placed under choice or biological.

Thanks for the link.

[Silly Green Monkey]

...seems a tad sexist to me.

[Guest]

...seems a tad sexist to me.

Wow, we're on the same page.

[O'Really]

Just to say that any theory referring homosexuality as genetical is wrong to the bone. I tell this by experience. For me, it was a mixture of dominant mother, weak and absent father, shy behaviour and weak physical nature. Now the causes of my asexuality I can only suppose.

[ApolloSeek]

Ive just heard many theories that say female homosexuality is more a mixture of childhood experiences than biological means, while male homosexuality is actually in the genes. However, both forms of homosexuality can probabily be placed under choice or biological.

Thanks for the link.

...seems a tad sexist to me.

What happens if the theories are correct? My main concern is the

fit of theories to fact, not ideology. The focus needs to be on proving

or disproving the theories, not wheter they are sexist or not.

[Silly Green Monkey]

My thought is that the ones who thought up the theories were sexist, since they have no evidence either way on different origins for homosexuality of the sexes.

[ApolloSeek]

My thought is that the ones who thought up the theories were sexist, since they have no evidence either way on different origins for homosexuality of the sexes.

How do you know if the people who formulated the theories were sexist?

Just formulating a theory contrary to some ideology does not give reason

to character-assassinate the theorizers, especially when there is no evidence

for or against it. If the theory was proved false and the orginators

insisted it was not, calling them sexist might be jusitified.

This is similar to Nazi progandists calling relativity "Jewish science" because

Einstein, a Jew, thought it up.

[ApolloSeek]

Just to say that any theory referring homosexuality as genetical is wrong to the bone. I tell this by experience. For me, it was a mixture of dominant mother, weak and absent father, shy behaviour and weak physical nature. Now the causes of my asexuality I can only suppose.

Then please explain the fact that a genetic marker for homosexuality

has been found? Or the studies that show structural differences between

the brains of gays and straight humans? Or similar findings in animals?

None of this implies, in the present state of knowledge, a causal link.

However, the correlation cannot be ignored.

The dominant mother, weak/absent father is a pyschoanalytic explantion.

It too does not explain all cases of homosexuality.

[O'Really]

Then please explain the fact that a genetic marker for homosexuality

has been found? Or the studies that show structural differences between

the brains of gays and straight humans? Or similar findings in animals?

None of this implies, in the present state of knowledge, a causal link.

However, the correlation cannot be ignored.

The dominant mother, weak/absent father is a pyschoanalytic explantion.

It too does not explain all cases of homosexuality.

Oh yes, I was wrong to think that could be the only cause.

[Silly Green Monkey]

What it sounds to me that the theorizers were saying was that sexual attraction to men was more natural and genetic than sexual attraction to women. Just because they don't know of a 'genetic marker' for female homosexuality does not mean that it's unnatural and physiological. This male 'genetic marker'.... have they looked for it only in gays, or in the general public?

and nothing can be proven, only supported or disproven.

[Friendly]

I'm not sure. I know that for me, there was a time when I really couldn't even deal with some of the sex talks they gave us in school. As I've gotten older and had more experiences (going through and graduating from public high school, watching a wide range of movies, reading all sorts of books, etc), I've built up more of a tolerance for the idea of sex, but I still don't want it. From that, I might conclude that it's biological, but again, I'm not sure.

[cijay]

The origin of my own asexuality was about Feb '62 - which was 9 months before I was born. As for the rest of the asexuals...hell if I know.

[joski]

Just to say that any theory referring homosexuality as genetical is wrong to the bone. I tell this by experience. For me, it was a mixture of dominant mother, weak and absent father, shy behaviour and weak physical nature. Now the causes of my asexuality I can only suppose.

The dominant mother weak father idea, while it does apply in my childhood (weak and abusive in fact) doesn't assume a causality. Just because a lot of gay people may have this familial setup in childhood doesn't mean that it caused them to be homosexual. The intrinsic problem with this explanation is that it assumes that the heteronormative nuclear family is somehow intrinsic to how people develop normally as children. Obviously this is not the case the world over. How does this explanation account for tribal societies? How about the cherokee family order? I know that I certainly did not choose to be gay, but even if my brain is different is that difference cuased by environmental factors or by genetic factors? Remember PTSD travels through generations and affects your upbringing and who you are. In the end the answer to the why of sexuality is much more complex than we may ever be able to explain. Maybe there are straight men with this brain difference that simply are not triggered by environment to exhibit homosexual tendencies. Maybe we shouldn't speculate and just accept each other.

[Guest]

According to ye olde http://www.religioustolerance.org, African-Americans have a higher rate of absent fathers. (Not stereotyping, it was a fact.) However, their rate of homosexuals is equal to the rate of homosexuals in other races. This seems to imply that a bad family life has nothing to do with it.

[Jayann]

What are you talking about? Sexual preference isn't something that is learned or chosen. With that logic, every gay child born to straight parents would have to be straight themselves. And there's never been any evidence whatsoever of gay parents having necessarily gay children. A family member's preferences have no influence on what yours are going to be.

My immediate family members are all pretty straight. And I'm pretty queer. I've never had a queer influence growing up, and yet, I've known I was queer since I was maybe between 8 or 10 years old.

I can't tell you why you have a hetero preference, but you ought to know that it's not a learned behavior. That seems like fundamental information to me.

[Autumn]

and yet theres no evidence that a lesbian women who has sex with a gay man in order to get pregnant gives birth to a homosexual child.... which kind of sends the purely genetic theory out of the window.

There are diseases that have an unknown cause, they have found gene markers for them in those with the disease and yet they have found gene markers for them in the healthy population, there is no single known trigger and everytime they get close to finding one some results spring up showing that this trigger is either not a factor or not the only one.

Of course im not saying homosexuality is a disease, but that doesnt mean it cant behave like one in who it does or doesnt appear in... a predisposition to swing one way or the other might be coded for in genes but environmental factors may trigger it.

The problem with those brain studies apollo- or at least the ones ive seen, are that they are pretty small scale.

[O'Really]

The text is long, but concise.

According to what I remember, in my childhood, I was so skinny and fragile I couldn't play with the boys at all. I always thought they were too brute for me, many times I would will to play with them, but I couldn't. Many times I would want to show masculine behavior, but that would make me feel guilty. In my childhood I always took masculinity as an impossible, unattainable characteristic, not just because of my physical nature, but because my macho mother were always depreciating masculinity and stimulating me to be feminine. Where was my father to defend masculinity? He was there, but he was silent, passive, accepting all which my mother said. Until I was 13-14, my mother was an absolute authority for me, I would never do anything to hurt her, even if that led to my own disadvantage. But... time changes, and as soon as my homosexuality became obvious in my early teen years, my mother started to punish me for being something she has always taught me to be! Now the person who once made me feel guilty for being masculine was punishing me for being feminine!

As Oscar Wilde said "Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it", her harshness made me realize the slave system in which I were. When I was 15, I finally got rid of my mother; for the first time in my life I didn't feel guilty for being masculine, I could finally show my real personality; those who saw me before 15 and then see me now feel shocked, they think I'm another person. Today both my parents and meaningless, unfortunately. My parents are not intelligent people (despite their post-graduation diplomas), they are not individuals whom I can count on. Needless to say, I don't have any consideration for my mothers criticisms about me today. She insults me in a daily basis just because I'm not her slave anymore, but I definitely don't care. The most weird thing is: as soon as I got rid of my mother, I involuntarily stopped to have homosexual fantasies and desires. I even went to therapy coes I couldn't understand it. My shrink at the time said I was in a limbus between asexuality and heterosexuality - bullshit! Today I know I'm in a limbus between nothing and nothing.

[joski]

Well its good that you have discovered that your parents are a bad influence on you Nargothic. But homosexual desire/orientation is definitely not a fleeting thing for me. I spent years in an oppressive religion repressing this desire and it still popped up. I can't explain it and I wont try anymore, it is intrinsic to my being and a part of me. I simply accept that nature made me who I am and I embrace every aspect of myself, its the only true road to happiness in my opinion.

It sounds like you have serious issues with your childhood, I think a good share of the people posting at and viewing this site do, including me. But the question of relationship with parents/peers is a complex one that may also involve how a child who is homosexual develops as opposed to how a straight one develops. But remember there are a lot of successful athletes who are gay.

[Jayann]

Midwinter: I am saying that homosexuality or heterosexuality is not something that is learned merely by being in the presence of a homosexual or a heterosexual during developmental years. It's not that simple.

I do believe there is a highly complex interaction of internal and external forces and influences that can affect the development of an individual's sexual identity and orientation. But merely living with gay or straight people won't affect a child's own preferences. There is no greater possibility of a child being straight just because they watch their parents engage in heterosexual behavior.

Their behavior and ideas of what is "right" and "wrong" may be influenced by how sexuality is treated in the family, but actual preference remains something that is determined through complex interactions within the individual.

[Des]

Ive just heard many theories that say female homosexuality is more a mixture of childhood experiences than biological means, while male homosexuality is actually in the genes. However, both forms of homosexuality can probabily be placed under choice or biological.

Does it really matter?

I mean, just because you're born one way doesn't mean you have to live that way...

When I was born I was:

7.9 lbs

24 inches long

Ambidextrous

Agnostic

Afraid of falling

Afraid of loud noises

Now I am:

255 lbs

6'6"

Ambidextrous

Christian

Luv falling (on roller coasters, jumping off of things)

Still hate loud noises

I don't know whether I was born asexual or not.

You can't really choose who or what you're attracted to, but you can choose how you react to it. If you choose one thing over another often enough, your brain will change to fit it. That's how addictions are changed.

The thing is, all Americans now have addiction born into them. We have to decide what sort of thing we're going to be addicted to.

[stargazer21]

Not that I'm superknowledgeable on the topic, but I find it hard to buy that homosexuality in men could be genetically caused in men but not women. I'm going to have agree that it sounds extremely sexist.

You can't really choose who or what you're attracted to, but you can choose how you react to it. If you choose one thing over another often enough, your brain will change to fit it.

I'm not sure I buy that your brain will change a preference, and I definitely don't think it's healthy. I think the addiction analogy is faulty as addictions are beaten not by changing the brain but by breaking the body of its chemical depence on the substance. Addictions are physical - not mental.

[Jayann]

Why are we lumping sexual preference with addiction to begin with?

[LostDaemon]

Addictions are mental, not only physical - if they were only physical, then I wouldn't still be smoking. Oral fixation + habitual behaviour during stress + nicotine = my addiction, and two of those are mental. :cry:

I know that your brain will change somewhat to fit your choices - if you feed a child an icky vegetable enough times, they will actually begin to like it, supposedly. I just think that sexual preference is a bit more complicated than just a chemical change - there's more than just brain chemicals to be considered, if those can even change after a given point in human development.

-LD

[Rabger]

I agree, that first thing about gay men being genetic and lesbians being mental, crap. Gay is gay is gay. Anyway, I have a theory about homosexuality and asexuality. I've heard it echoed in other places as well. But first, I think its a mix of genetics and upbringing. First off, I have a book called Biological Exuberance that was a 10+ year study of homosexuality in the wild. It shows hundreds and hundreds of cases involving both sexes and in hundreds of different species. Even in whales, which are endangered (pointing that out to prove that its not a cause of overpopulation). Anyway, my a-, homo- theory is that it is completely natural and has always been around. It is a sort of population control. You know, we have natural population controls such as weather, food, diseases, people that can't have kids, etc. etc. Well, I think homo- and a- is just another control and I think its in all species. Not that it worked well in the case of humans, but we're the only species that acts violently toward people different.

"While homosexual behavior is widespread among our primate relatives, aggression specifically directed toward individuals that engage in it appears to be a uniquely human invention." ~Paul L. Vasey

[joski]

The thing to remember about homosexuality is that it does not neccessitate an enmity towards the opposite sex, simply a preference for the same sex. Homosexuality is a really crappy form of population control in my opinion as just about any homosexual can still be coerced, at least once or twice, into heterosexual intercourse. Another interesting fact is that sexual orientation is subject to change over a lifetime. It doesn't have to but it can. Ideally society would be so accepting that no one would have to "Come out", as teenagers we would date whoever we want and there would be no violent repercussions for asking the wrong gender out on a date. Just like it became obvious over time that I have a proclivity towards all things mechanical, musical, and literate, in an ideal world my sexual orientation would exhibit itself over time in the same way, as a natural progression. The problem is that there is this strange taboo about sex with the same gender. So we deny our internal desire to experiment (I think those are two of humanity's best assets, experimentation and imitation) and that manifests itself as violence towards those that practice that thing which we wish we could just try (or are already doing in secret).

[Autumn]

You know, we have natural population controls such as weather, food, diseases, people that can't have kids, etc. etc. Well, I think homo- and a- is just another control and I think its in all species.

I have real trouble with that theory about natural population control.

weather happens everywhere, populated or not.

disease does occur in places where there is higher populations but this is because that makes it easier to spread between members of the population... etc etc

people that cant have kids happens everywhere... yes its on the increase but i really cant see how that is connected to a higher population - it doesnt make sense.

Anyway sorry im off topic... i just dont get how this natural species control is supposed to work.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Population control can be due to weather, since every animal will respond to weather as instincts dictate. Also, the food they eat may serve to control the population based on the weather, California grouse show decreased fertility in drought years due to phytoestrogens concentrated in the plants they eat. During wet years the plants produce much less phytoestrogens and the quail reproduce prolifically.(Animal Physiology textbook)

Many species attack those who are different. Chickens will peck each other to death if one seems the slightest bit different or has a sore. I don't think feather color is a factor though. Species which are crowded, even if they tend to crowd themselves, show increased stress which makes them more vulnerable to disease. And, the population of infertile people is high now because the overall population is high. Could just be a matter of percentage.

On a side note, I was lent a book called Mismeasure of Sexuality by Edward Stein. I will read it as soon as I get time to (lots of assignments this week and next) and report back. If anyone else has read it, please weigh in.

[mcsquared]

Not that I'm superknowledgeable on the topic, but I find it hard to buy that homosexuality in men could be genetically caused in men but not women. I'm going to have agree that it sounds extremely sexist.

Yeah, the thing is almost all the studies done have been on gay men and most of the academics doing research on this are men so women are more ignored...