A Sensitive Question For Gay People

[Sir Burr]

Firstly, I would like to empasise that I don't want to offend anybody here, but, I don't have any gay friends (that I know of) that I can ask. Even if I had, I think I would be too shy to ask. I suppose it's easier to ask on this forum under the cloak of anonymity.

If you do find it offensive, just say so and I will never darken the doorway of this forum again. Here goes:-

The churches position on homosexuality is that it is a "choice" and that homosexuals can be weaned off this behavior. Personally, I think this is <deleted>.

So, if we can agree that people don't choose to be gay, then we get to the "nurture versus nature" proposition.

I believe that there have been studies of identical twins. If one is gay, then there is a high chance the other twin is too, but by no means in every case. As identical twins are genetically the same, this might look as if nurture is the key. But when you focus on nurture, this is inconclusive too.

What do gay people think?

[jdinasia]

personally it's a moot point.

so why worry about it at all?

as for the "Church" since there is no difference between sins etc.. then why worry about that either.

If people think (in the West) that being gay is a choice then they need to come up with a rationalization as to why so many well adjusted sane happy people "choose" to be part of a rather despised group. Since that doesn't make sense they just stick with the God argument.

[migca]

I think that the case for "nature" is being reinforced every day. As you mentioned there have been numerous studies on twins that show consistently that if one twin is gay the other has almost a 50% chance of being gay as well. Some of these studies looked mainly at twins that had been separated at birth or close to birth and raised apart and in different types of households. Nonetheless even in these cases where nurture was completely different for each of the twins their genetic similarities still ensured that if one was gay the other had an over 50% chance of being so. That's a clear case for nature as far as I can see.

Plus many new studies are being made that look at specific sexual traits or at the actual brain -- recently a Swedish study sprayed sexual pheromones (am I spelling it right?), our "sexual" smells, both male and female, on a different groups of subjects (gay males, straight females), while scanning their brains and looking at activity centers. The conclusion: gay males' brains showed immediate activity in the "sex center" areas of the brain when they smelled the male pheromones. This happened in fractions of a second, which made the scientists think that gay sexuality is highly biologic since the response was so "intrinsic" and took place at such a primary level of the brain.

Now, there might be a nurture aspect to it, but it's a lot more difficult to study. The theories that gay men were treated like girls by their mother, or the Freudian theory that it's the dominant mother-absent father are simply not true if you just talk to a few gay men.

Personally, I always liked men as far as I can remember. Also, look at my family, which is an interesting case study for the nature case: I have no brothers but I do have 9 cousins in the first degree (i.e. sons and daughters of my father's brothers and sisters). 5 are male, 4 female. 1 female and 1 male are bellow 10 yo but the rest are over 20. 3 of the males including me are gay. That's a pretty big coincidence.

Best

Miguel

[Sir Burr]

migca,

Thanks for your great response to my question.

[Scott]

As a follow up to the previous post, it may be more complex than just the genetic factor. There is a biological/chemical element as well. There may be certain chemicals/hormones released at specific times during pregnancy that can help pre-determine homosexual tendencies.

Undoubtedly, sexuality is a very primal condition. I don't believe there is much choice involved. My guess is that it's a combination of things, driven primarily by genetics and strongly influenced by prenatal hormones.

No single thing has been isolated to date.

[Simpleton]

Why would anyone "choose" to be part of a minority that is widely persecuted?

[ProThaiExpat]

Excellent thread OP.

Excellent posts to date, as well.

While the vast majority of scientific studies to date seem to point to heredity as the cause of homosexuality, there are enough "nurture" elements to suggest validity there as well.

I am intrigued by the biological fact that sex is so dual in nature. When one considers doctors, through surgery, can rebuild the female sex organ into a sexual male organ or consider how little causitive factor is necessary in the womb to change an embryo from male to female, perhaps there is a mix of factors that determine the outcome.

Suppose that there is a sexual preference gene that gets "assigned" in the development of the foetus but for some reason, external or not, the preference for male gene is assigned to an embryo that developes into a male.

On the sexual duality theme, perhaps sexual preference, in some, is on the "fence" so to speak until way after birth and external events push the ambivalent psyche to one side or the other. If the male is pushed onto the female preference side, no discussion, etc. A nurture agruement.

In my case, I provide the following case history for your analysis and insight.

Off to boarding school before the age of five, not even home visits until a couple of years with both parents and then off to boarding school until puberty, when living was in a dominant female household.

Overt homosexual experimentation in boarding school but sex dreams and female arousal during early puberty. Dominant mother exposed herself during late puberty and subsequently sex thoughts included males. At this time had a male sexual experience that seems to have "stamped my DNA", so to speak as to what I want to do in bed with males.

Played the societal game, married, had children and only came out in mid-thirities.

Self analysis is fraught with the "rose colored glass" syndrome, but my take on my own sexuality is that perhaps there is a pre-disposition gene, but the ultimate resolution of sexual preference orientation may be affected by nurture as well.

Studies show that testosterone is a major factor in sexual desire. Women have it as well and late studies show that a pre-marital testosterone test is a better indicator of marrital harmony than anything else. High testosterone in both male and female spells a marriage rife with conflict, as they both have a dominance factor that conflicts with the other dominant partner.

Perhaps a male with low testosterone levels affected by nurture can end up a homosexual. where a male with high testosterone who is affected by the same nuture factors remains herterosexual.

The emotional cmponent cannot be ignored as well. Is a male who is by personality or nurture effeminate, more likely to turn to homosexuality rather than to heterosexuality.

In my case, I think many nurture factors have contributed to my homosexuality and freudian concepts like:

1. Dominant mother absent father.

2. As the branch is bent, so grows the tree.

3. Arrested sexual development at early puberty during same sex experimentation by psychological molestation.

Your thoughts?

[Sir Burr]

I think we can agree that genetics plays a role in determining sexuality. I think that other posters are correct in that there is a genetic predisposition only with regard to homosexuality, and hormones in the womb, or, conditions of nurture can then reinforce this genetic disposition.

At the risk of getting into pseudo-science, if it is genetic, and that trait is still here; then it stands to reason that this gene bestows some advantage to survival.

As homosexuality by it's very nature does not promote procreation, maybe it's the "pressure to conform" by straight society that actually ensures that these genes get passed on.

In an ideal world where there was no stigma attached to homosexuality, could homosexuality eventually die out? Do gay people have the urge to procreate?

Sorry, I'm boringly straight so try and be indulgent to some of my stupid questions.

[ProThaiExpat]

Sir Burr: Your last post raises an interesting point, although perhaps like "dancing on a pin" , as the likelyhood that mankind would ever get to a place where it would allow inherently non-conforming (to the majority) behavior to have full acceptance and status is doubtful.

Since homosexuality is present in at least 80 animal species without the social structure of humans, my guess if it is a "natural" condition that will not "die out".

As my personal experience indicates, expectiing eventual mature homosexual status to be achieved prior to procreation is doubtful. But of course, we don't know nor have we discussed if the "gay gene" is recessive or not. Recessive in some generations, dominant in others. My family tree has alternating generations of male and female offspring, without deviation. So could go the "gay gene".

[migca]

Hello Everyone,

PTE's response really provided a lot of food for thought.

To start off I do agree that factors later on after birth, even during adolescence, may push things one way or another. Also, let us not forget that the Kinsey study showed that many people slide along the kinsey sexuality scale (1-completely hetero, 6 completely homosexual) during their life, sometimes quite a lot indeed. Human sexuality is a lot more fluid than is commonly assumed or rather openly discussed. For example, I don't know if any other gay members out here share this experience, but something that has always astounded me is the quantity of men that I have met professionally and in my private life that being typically married and some reputed as ladies' men who, when meeting me as an young out gay man who does have a stereotypical "gay" demeanour, will make me propositions or confess in private a desire to experiment in gay sex.

A great deal of people have a potential for bisexuality, and in Ancient Rome and Greece it was the assumed norm. However, I do believe there are people who are and remain all their life at the extreme ends of the scale and never budge. Even in Ancient Greece where homosexual sex was rather widespread and extolled and most men indulged in it there were still a few that we know had no interest in it though society practically promoted the practice: Pericles and Aristophanes reputedly only liked women.

What I do fail to see is how the whole distant father - dominant mother freudian thing works. I think simply through the way society reacts to homosexuality it might be something that is self-fullfiled post facto -- what I mean is an adolescent comes out or gives signs of homosexuality, and most western parents might react by the father distancing himself in reaction and the mother being overbearingly protective in response.

What I do not agree with in PTE's post is the way he seems to treat homosexuality as arrested development, as something that goes wrong. I think homosexuals fulfill roles and are a result of a mutation or variation that exists because it is useful. Homosexual members of any community of any species can take care of other members instead of just concentrating on passing on their own genes, they curb the risk of overpopulation, and in complex human societies they can have occupations that require greater freedom and liberation from some responsibilities: how else can the fact that such an overly large proportion of creative artists including many of mankind's geniuses were homosexual. Supposedly we are just 3% of the general population. By the way one of the intewresting developments in sexuality research of the last 3-5 years for me has been the discovery of the prevalence of exclusively homosexual members in many species: an article I recently read put out by a team from Oregon State U. looking at sheep herds anounced that they had found in the various herds a couple of "male-oriented", as they called them, groups of rams " who consistently ignore females and become amorous to members of their own sex" (quoting). The San Francisco Zoo even has a penguin gay couple for a few years that is a big attraction, naturally in that town.

The final thing I would like to react to in PTE's post is the whole effeminacy/testosterone: I don't see why male homosexuals should have on average a lower level of testosterone, I don't believe there has ever been any study to that effect. As regards effeminacy l have several times in my life met quite mannered and effiminate men who I assumed to be gay and then found out were either married or had reputations as bedding quite a few women. Stereotypes of homosexual men as effeminate or flamboyant are a fairly recent invention -- in ancient greece homosexual men were assumed to be the most virile and manly because no part of them had interest in what was feminine; let us not forget that a few armies like the Theban band were made up exclusively of male couples and were considered the most crack elite military corps. A good read on this is Plato's symposium, where Aristophanes during the banquet expounds a theory/myth of sexuality that is very modern-sounding and fun too: that humans used to have 2 heads, 4 legs and 4 arms and were very powerful beings that could run very fast rolling like a ball. One day they were so convinced of their power that they built a very tall tower to be able to storm the skies and take the place of the gods by defeating them. Of course the gods checked their revolution and Zeus as punishment divided them in half. So, the two parts would look for the other part that complemented it. The pre-human beings had come in 3 types, female, male, and hermafrodite -- once divided the first became two halfs, each a lesbian female, the second, each half became a gay male, and the third, each half became, one a straight male, and the other a straight female. It's a quirky but strangely plausible myth.

The whole thing of effeminacy and homosexual men is quite new, in the 18th century dandified effeminate men were assumed to be straight men who learned the ways of women so they could more easily seduce them. Other historical examples: in the early 17th century in Rome groups of homosexual youths were known to have drinking clubs and like to pick brutal fights on the streets and fight duels. The great homosexual artist Caravaggio was part of one of them, and his group's motto was "Neither Fear nor Hope". Not very effeminate...

And, by the way, the brutal paramilitary SA group that served as Hitler's tool to get to power and was disbanded by him in 1935 was mainly composed by homosexual militaristic young men...

Just a few thoughts to kindle the fire of more contributions... definitely a lot complex issues in this whole question.

[migca]

sorry typo escaped me at the top of my post: "..when meeting me as a young out gay man who does NOT have a stereotypical....etc"

[Steve2UK]

Definitely very complex - and I'm glad to see that no-one as yet seems to be falling into the trap of looking for "the answer". My own view is that it's usually neither just "nature" nor just "nurture" - but rather a highly variable blend and interaction of the two according to many factors coinciding.

For example, if someone is a "latent" homosexual, he/she may or may not discover their predisposition (which might be anything between very weak and very strong) if the opportunity (maybe some kind of event or invitation) doesn't occur at some point. Equally, he/she might be in a such a tight-knit controlled environment that any such inclinations will be effectively suppressed by outside pressures (ranging from "it's just a phase - you'll grow out of it" to "it's evil - you must put it aside"). After all, many people need to establish for themselves that something is OK to do/be - that they have "permission".

So, it seeems to me that a number of factors (both nature and nurture and different in different cases) generally have to come together to produce the potential to emerge as homosexual to some degree and even then it doesn't make it certain - only possible/more likely.

I can't find anything in terms of cause to fundamentally disagree with in what previous posters have said; most of us can cite examples to support all of the varying propositions - which, to me, argues that the range and mixture of actual causes is almost infinitely variable.

That said, I do want to correct what I think are a couple of misleading generalisations and misconceptions. My understanding of Ancient Greece (itself an evolving society over several thousand years in several city states) is that it was never a golden age of homosexual love and relationships as fondly imagined; it was mostly regarded as acceptable for a boy to take the passive role with an adult man but not acceptable after that boy reached manhood - and he could be cast out or executed for it. The brief period of the Theban band is an exception and, arguably, motivated by the greater priority of military effectiveness. And, yes, there are specific examples (Alexander for one) who were exceptions to that general rule.

Second, while Ernst Roehm (leader of the SA) was a notorious homosexual and almost certainly surrounded himself with a sympathetic clique, it was anything but widespread in the SA as a whole. The famous scene in Visconti's "The Damned" (where the SS liquidate numbers of the SA elite and their male bed partners in a lakeside hotel) is largely the director's invention - great cinema but no more than that.

But these (I think) false examples do set me thinking about situations where it does genuinely seem to be regarded as OK to at least "do" homosexual if not necessarily "be" homosexual. Closed single-sex societies like prisons and boading schools, for example. That particular tribe or clan in Afghanistan who are famously homosexual - and were so even with the Taliban at the peak of their ruling power. I do start to wonder if a certain percentage presence of homosexuality is almost inevitable in almost any culture or situation - and if that is an inherent part of nature's balancing of factors.

[ProThaiExpat]

micqua: I certainly was not advocating any view on this subject, in fact I, like Steve2uk am on the fence on what are the causitive factors. Many gays wisely say what difference does it make what causes it!

Your admitted misunderstanding of the "classic" absent father/dominant mother theory is evident in your post. That theory suggests the afsent father provides no role model of masculinity and the dominering mother "impresses" feminity on the male child for sufficient time and at the appropriate time in his development that he becomes homosexual after these forces are in place.

Along this line is another theory that some societies make the male role so daunting and performance oriented, that many males retreat into femininity in fear of male role fulfillment failure.

I frankly have no strong feeling regarding any theories or whether the gay gene concept is viable, I just keep wondering. I do know that the religionists are so wrong about so many things, that their being wrong about homosexuality is almost a given.

I certainly don't advocate the "arrested development" theory, although it does seem to hve some empercal validity in my case, assuming one believes that adolescent homosesual experimentation or play is just a stop on the road to mature heterosexual status.

I must admit, I tend toward the nurture argument based on my own experiences, but I do not believe homosexuality is a choice, I would have much prefered to be a heterosexual in the societies prevalent in many countries today. I enjoyed the accepatance, approval and accord experienced by married heterosexual men for ten years of my life, but it was not complete fullfillment, as I have learned since.

Only through gay marriage will gay men in any society reach any degree of fullfillment in this regard, IMHO.

Edited June 26, 2005 by ProThaiExpat

[peter991]

Firstly, congratulations to all the posters on this topic for well thought out replies.

One point which I feel has so far not been mentioned is society's response to gay behaviour.

Although gays are slowly being accepted or tolerated in western society today, the Thai attitude to homosexuality is far more accepting that any place in the world I have visited.

Perhaps this is why katooeys are so popular in schools in Thailand. My Thai boyfriend lives with his parents in a remote Issan village and his parents welcomed me to their home. It's no secret in the village that I am gay and I am very accepted by all.

I was told by my boyfriend that being gay is okay, but it is generally accepted that Thai guys 'settle down, marry a girl, have children and look after their parents' when they are older.

Peter

[ChrisP]

Hi guys...

Thanks for GREAT and thoughtful - on-topic - posts here... !! (something you don't always find in the rest of ThaiVisa..! (Although George is actively trying to change that..)

]Also, let us not forget that the Kinsey study showed that many people slide along the kinsey sexuality scale (1-completely hetero, 6 completely homosexual) during their life, sometimes quite a lot indeed. Human sexuality is a lot more fluid than is commonly assumed or rather openly discussed[/i].

This is exactly what (I feel) happened to me... Str8/married, then slowly changed at late 30's... Were there clues before.? Yes, some instances that I see now in hindsight. But back then.. nope.

My preferences back then were to small, slim-build women (with small boobs)... now, my preference is for small, slim-build (and somewhat fem) men..... and I'm still the Top.

I grew up in a VERY small town in the UK where homosexuality/gayness wasn't even mentioned. So, no real "education" on the topic until much later....

When I came out (in the USA) I joined a "Married Man's Coming Out Support Group"... with 20+ others... I had NO idea there were SO many married men in the same situation as me....!!

ChrisP

Edited June 26, 2005 by ChrisP

[ChrisP]

Perhaps this is why katooeys are so popular in schools in Thailand

I don't think this is, or has always been, the case.

My bf tells me that his HS experience in BKK was quite miserable 5 years ago. He's no kathoey, but was/is obviously a gay "pretty-boy" type..

He does say that Thai attitudes have changed a lot in the past 5 years to be much more accepting of gays....

Also, (and I don't quite see the logic in this) he says that even though many gay men are quite "masculine/str8-acting".. the Thai viewpoint is that (no matter what) gay men are always viewed as "feminine/the woman".....

ChrisP.

[ProThaiExpat]

Sir Burr: To answer your question about gays and "procreation", I think it is safe to say that gay men and women's attitude towrd that subject is the same as heterosexual people, varying from one extreme to the other.

L

esbians have children "in vitro" with great regularity, gay men hire surrogate mothers to conceive their children, adoption by gays, while not purely procreative by definition, still largely satisfies the urge to parent.

In my case, while it was my wife's choice to have children, I was ambivalent on the issue at the time, now I consider it one of my greatest gifts to be a parent.

I, for one, have difficulty with the concept of a "gay lifestyle". I live my life just as I did when I was married to a woman, the only difference is that my partner is a man, not a woman and except for the mechanics of sexual union, and even there, there are not a lot of differences, our "lifestyle" is the same as when I was married.

I must say, I have detected more "body part fixation" among the gay men I have encounered than among females. Most men, when you think of it, speak of being a "boob" man, leg man, ass man or the like, identifying the body part most desired, and gay men are not different in that regard. I don't know about gay women,(yes I know they prefer the term lesbian). I have heard women say that a certain man has a "great ass" for instance, but have never heard them identify with any particular male body part.

While I am a T&A man, I make love to the person, not the body part, thus I was able to have satisfying sexual relations with both men and women at the same time during my "coming out".

Once gays have equal rights, I think much of the turmoil about gays today will disapear and a "ho hum" attitude will prevail.

I am of the opinion that the inter-racial marriage issue, resolved in the U.S. in 1964 is a example of a similar social issue that has resolved with court ordered equal rights decisions. At the time the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, more than 80% of Americans were against inter-racial marriage. Today, do we even hear a riple? Even the most conservative of churhes embrace what they abhorred and lynched for just forty years ago. Surprisingly, the polls show less than 60% are against gay marriage. In Massachusetts, a majority of their legislature voted for a state constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage last year but now they can't even muster enough votes to bring the issue to the floor.

As with the anti-miscegination laws previously alluded to as an example, the "bible belt" is still strongly anti-same sex marriage and will remain so until the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the denial of equal legal unions to gays is unconstitutional.

[ProThaiExpat]

ChrisP has put his finger on a key element in how Thais view homosexuality differently than in the west, IMHO.

My Thai refers to male sexuality with men as "he is a man" or he is a "katoy". Definite sexual role typeing. I think the reason for this is that Thais are less homophobic than in the west and they don't suffer under the yoke of a Christian-Judian heritage.

Thai men step over the line, so to speak, without a thought if an opportunity presents itself, and I am sure the more effeminate the male, the easier for him to do so. Certainly, an effeminate male brings this issue forward immediately.

My Thai, often passes Thai straight men attracted to him, off to his Thai"sisters", who don't share his attitude toward fidelity and after they have had dinner and a few drinks, the "target of opportunity" is what is available, not what was originally sought.

My Thai does affect a long hairstyle that most world class tennis players do today, as that is his identity and with his almost faultless complexion, and short stature, probably implies "gayness", although he is not effeminate in any way. However, since he plays tennis with effeminate gay men, I am sure his "gayness" becomes of issue more readily than when he plays with straights, thus he becomes a maginate for Thai men who want to play away from wife and kids but who may feel embarrased to show interest in katoy in public.

[Sir Burr]

Well, I am a lot wiser at the end of this thread than at the beginning. Was very nervous about posting my original questions, as I thought I would get labelled a homophobe, which I'm not.

Would just like to thank all the people who posted for their lucid answers and making me feel welcome on this forum.

[OlRedEyes]

I am certainly not an expert on this subject, by far. However, I do have my views, and wonder if someone can just tell me if they are far too naive.....

For clarity, I tend to try and always see the bigger picture. (The KISS pricipal?) Sure, investigate the details for info, but if one gets stuck in the details, one loses the abilty to see the larger issues.

Am I right in the belief that all foetuses (sp) start out as female... read this somewhere. Genetics then determines how that foetus develops. Nothing in life is only black and white, it is we that always want to categorize everything into neat little boxes.

Everything is on a scale between extremes. So we have extremely macho men and extremely submissive females. The majority lies somewhere in between. There has to be a range within this range where the physical develops into male or female and the psyche or emotional lies on the opposite side of the centre line. This must be largely due to genetics.

The problem is not the development, it is our insistence that things must be in hard categories. All life is on a varying scale, one man is less sensitive than another, hetero or gay. In the gay community, one will be more feminine than the other (top, bottom, switch). Many ppl are bi-sexual, in varying degrees. Men find it harder to admit due to cultural/social indoctrination. There are no boxes.

If we could just stop trying to make things fit our philosophies and preferences, there will be no problems.

Maybe i'm missing a lot of things?

[ProThaiExpat]

OlRedEyes: Spot on!! I have always felt that a large portion of humankind feels more comfortable when they can put others in a "box", something like at hotel reception where there is a box for every room key.

Thus, often the first question asked at an introduction is "what do you do"?, or your introduced to another by your name and what you do. By catergorizing or labeling another, that person is put in a "box" where all the generalities one adheres to operate to make one more comfortable.

Something I don't ascribe to, but something I can fall into readily.

[Ijustwannateach]

Excellent discussion so far. I have a point to add: the people who want homosexuality to result primarily from environment usually have a political agenda in the sense that if it can be "trained" out of someone then such training programs "should" be set up (usually for misguided reasons of religion or fascism).

It's important to point out in response to such dangerous lines of thinking that things which are influenced by the environment can become physically fixed at various stages and are no longer necessarily mutable.

For example, in the development of the visual system in mammals, there is a stage in which an infant must use its eyes to stimulate development of parts of the visual cortex, leading eventually to normal vision. If the eyes are not functional or covered during this period of infancy, then vision never develops, even if the eyes are perfectly functional and uncovered later.

Of course, the sorts who want to "train" the gayness out of us are unlikely to sit still long enough to listen to such an argument, but for the fence-sitters who might be swayed by fascism this is a good thing to know.

"Steven"

[migca]

Steve2UK,

First of all thanks so much for the text you sent me; I was planning to just skim it as it was rather long but ended up reading the whole thing and it was very informative, especially the history and customs sections. My thai bf was quite thrilled when I started discussing all my new knowledge with him, and a lot of things have become a lot clearer.

As regards your critique of my use of historical examples I will try to defend them nonetheless; my assertions were based on some wide reading resulting from an interest I have had in both periods for some years. The SA/Roehm example: I just finished a rather impressive tome, a bio of Hitler by a famous historian, and there he specifically asserts that there was a pervasive homoerotic ethos to the SA, not just to the leadership clique around Roehm, and indeed I have seen satirical caricatures from the German press of the time very explicitly to that effect. Furthermore, the Viconti scene IS based on the actual capture of Roehm by Hitler. It happened on a lake-side resort somewhere in Germany, and when Hitler's minions erupted into the rooms to capture Roehm plus his small entourage about half of them WERE sleeping with younger male companions, not including Roehm though. Plus Germany in the 20s and 30s was a place that somewhat accepted homosexuality, often linked to a martial spirit obssession. That's why Isherwood and co. moved there.

Concerning the Ancient Greece example: sure, the type of homosexual relationship that was most extolled was the pederastic type you described, but that was simply what got most lip service, just like lifelong monogamous heterosexual marriage without pre-marital sex is what gets the most lip service in the US, for example. The reality: many humans have all types of relationships with all kinds of people throughout their life. The same way the acceptance of only one type of homosexual relationship in Ancient Greece was more theoretical than practical. Just read Plato, his dialogues are like plays were you can look at the sex habits of the upper class Athenians: in the Symposium, in Phaedrus, which are the dialogues most concerned with love, most of the characters that appear have homosexual relations with other adults or want to, there aren't any adolescent boys present. In Symposium Alciabides (in his 20s) is pursuing Socrates (50s?), Agathon who is in his 20s seems to have a relationship with another guy his age whose name I can't remember. The more egalitarian strain of homosexual realtionships had a great tradition in Ancient Greece: Achilles and Patrolucus in Iliad were about the same age, and the Athenians had statues all around town of a pair of heroes they revered: Harmodius and Aristigion (not 100% on my memory of the names) who were lovers and roughly the same age and together were martired while trying to kill a tyrannt Athens had in the 6th BC. They were upheld as symbols of democracy.

That said, this thread has really produced some really interesting posts. The nature/nurture is still an open question but probably both have some effect, the thing is the nature argument is easier to prove and it forestalls any attempts by wackos to hijack nurture as an excuse to cure people. To my knowledge, though studies have been proving more and more so that genetics play a big part as do hormonal and other factors in the womb, not many studies have been done to show the validity of Freudian theory, or any other concerning nurture factors to homosexuality. Those studies are the domain of social sciences which a lot less exact than studying genes and etc.

Another thing I've wondered about is this: the stories of some of the more senior members in this thread showed they had sometimes went through a heterosexual period before coming to homosexuality. Was this a kinseyan natural sliding around the scale, or was this simply because the climate in the West was very hostile to hmosexuality until not too long ago and people without much information and lot of deterrent were more liable to try to fool themselves and play the society game, as someone here called it, by marrying, etc. I mean no offense, but I am curious because gay males of the younger generation like me, most seem to just come out pretty early and that's it. Do the members I'm refering to feel that it was because of society's pressures or just because of a natural shift in sexual interest that this occured to you?

A final point that proceeds from the nature/nurture and which is quite fascinating to me is the question of gay identity or lifestyle. Having a propensity to love and/or have sex with mainly people of the same sex is translated in its bare bones in just acts or in something more? Does this group of different people just happen to all like members of the same sex romantically or do they actually have something in common? This came to my mind for two reasons: PTE's comment that he did not lead a gay lifestyle, that he just lived the same way with his thai as he had with female partners; the second was a discussion I had with my father who came to visit me recently. We were discussing the latest books we had read. He had read Gore Vidal's (who is gay) latest book, and after a while he said "you know, Vidal has a good attitude towards sexuality, he believes in individuality, that sexual preferences are just acts not an identity, and that all this turning simple natural preferences into more than that is silly". He then said that great artists were just themselves, great in their individuality, and that Proust being gay, or Forster, was just an incident, and that any literature that was specifically "gay" would be impoverished because it would be sectarian and propagandistic.

I countered that most literature is sectarianly heterosexual but that is not noticed because that is the norm. Plus saying that sexual preferences should just be looked at as individual characteristics not as an actual identity, was the same as someone who plays golf often identifying as someone who likes to hit a small white ball with a club on a lawn, rather than the broader identity of golf aficcionado. There is more to golf than hitting the ball with the club, all golfers inclined people have the shared experience of using carts, of walking on the grass, etc.

Shouldn't this be the same with gay people? Plus when a group of people is attacked even if they are perfect strangers and have just met they will band together and fight, and that will lead to the development of an identity. Also, aren't there different mating and courting rituals for homosexuals than heterosexuals, common parallels to all gay relationships? I'm not sure.

As regards art I think it's long overdue a gay presence. For some reason gay people have a disproportionate representation in the art and creative worlds, so why should gay writers write only about straight characters like Forster and others? Plus we have reached a level of acceptance in some western countries that permitts gay artists to just create without having to do propaganda anymore. A good example is Alan Hollinghurst who writes mainly about gay characters but is a good writer nonetheless and is being read by gay and straight alike for the sheer quality, nothing else.

David Leavitt who is another such writer was once asked in an interview "mr. leavitt, why do you have so many gay characters in your books?", and he retorted "i read an interview you did with mr. Updike recently, why didn't you ask him why he has so many straight characters in his books?"

[Scott]

On the topic of genetics. There is some support that even though the "gene" which causes homosexuality may not result in procreation, it may help to insure the survivability of offspring.

In the animal kingdom, homosexual liasons in which one animal actively procreates may have a greater chance of the young surviving because the "gay" part of the three-way relationship may help to protect and nurture the young. This has been seen in some animals. This would mean that whatever genetic factors are involved, they would get passed along, although not as directly. This would insure that they don't die off.

This same factor may play a part in why women live longer--or well past the child-bearing age. It might be genetically a good idea for grandma to be alive to care for the grandchildren that carry her genes.

Of course, a lot of this is speculation and will take many years of research and discovery to be confirmed/denied.

[bina]

In the animal kingdom, homosexual liasons in which one animal actively procreates may have a greater chance of the young surviving because the "gay" part of the three-way relationship may help to protect and nurture the young. This has been seen in some animals

meerkats do something like this: one female, two males, one of whom breeds, and one who guards and babysits, but he doesnt have sex with either of the others, at least not from what we've watched....

[Thomas_Merton]

In the animal kingdom, homosexual liasons in which one animal actively procreates may have a greater chance of the young surviving because the "gay" part of the three-way relationship may help to protect and nurture the young. This has been seen in some animals

meerkats do something like this: one female, two males, one of whom breeds, and one who guards and babysits, but he doesnt have sex with either of the others, at least not from what we've watched....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On a lighter note:

This reminds me of one of the stories the Kibbutz pioneers used to tell, about how they always accommodated 3 pioneers in one tent (two of one sex and one of the other) - there is a Hebrew name for this, which I cannot remember.

The reason being, as explained to me, was to reduce sexual activity.

EDIT// Just remembered what it was called - primus - although it sounds more Latin than Hebrew.

Edited June 29, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[Steve2UK]

Migca - I think I must defer to your more recent and in-depth scholarship. Not wanting to wander off-topic on something relatively arcane, would you PM me or e-mail me the name of the Hitler biographer you mentioned? I've read most of them and researched/wrote a dramatised biography of AH - and, no, I don't have fantasies about sex with guys in SS uniform (but I know a man who does ). On the other points about that period, 1) I think the scene was largely confined to Berlin and far from universal there and 2) lurid anti-nazi, anti-communist, anti-semitic, anti-anything caricature was rife - doesn't really demonstrate that there were substantial grounds for it, IMHO. I also have it in mind that large numbers of homosexuals were rounded up in the mid-thirties and thrown into the camps with other "undesirables". As I'm sure you know, they had to wear the pink triangle badge.

Having said all that, I turned up a fascinating article which supports a lot of what you say ("Homosexuality and the Nazi Party" by Scott Lively) - here:

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html

And it's great that your Thai bf is so happy about the interest you're taking in his culture - I hoped that would be the case as well as making things clearer between you.

[bina]

primus was originally a type of karosene lantern i think, but maybe borrowed from the latin too, will ask in laws tommorrow as they are old time kibbutzniks....

nazis and homosexuality: dont forget that also among many many mammals, homosexual behavior is often used as 'domination' behavior i.e. a male mounts an other male and performs sex oriented motions as a way to dominate a new male, or younger upstarting male... rabbits do that, dogs do that, goats do that (female to female too)... etc... so the nazi male thing could be maybe like in prisons where its not just meant as a 'search for warmth' or 'sexual outlet' but as a 'control and domination ' thing i.e. superior officer to subordinate etc.. whereas the 'real homosexuals' i.e. those that were ingaged in 'relationships' as opposed to 'sex use' were rounded up and wiped out along with the rest of the 'scum'...just idle speculation

Edited June 29, 2005 by bina

[ProThaiExpat]

Steve2uk: The thread you provided was facinating and certainly raises many questions regarding power and its abuses. I learned a lot from reading the thread and am in your debt for providing it.

I was struck by the parallel to J. Edgar Hoover and his right hand "man" with the abuses of Rhoem. Clearly, most of the "troops" were straight, there were just too many of them, but it is believable that the heirarchy were a close group of gays. Hoover ensured his continued power and his longevity with his files on the prominent and Hitler wisely destroyed such files with his raid on the Sex Institute.

The use and abuse of power is rife, regarless of sexuality, ie. Catholic Church and perhaps with the gradual acceptace of homosexuality by society, the use of power to obtain an outlet for this behaviour will diminish. I doubt, however, that sado-machocistic behaviour and "domininance" related sexual acts, such as rape, will ever be extingushed, as I truly believe it is a animal dynamic with natural origins.

Only through "political correctness" will it ever be reduced through disapproval.

bina: Spot on regarding your highlighting of dominance. Many of the chimpanzee films show the turning of the body with the then available rectal area toward another to show subserviance. It may well include females in the behavior as well.

Edited June 30, 2005 by ProThaiExpat

[Thomas_Merton]

...

Only through "political correctness" will it ever be reduced through disapproval.

bina: Spot on regarding your highlighting of dominance.  Many of the chimpanzee films show the turning of the body with the then available rectal area toward another to show subserviance.  It may well include females in the behavior as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not the chimpanzee films shown in a political correct world.