Our bodies tell us who we are
Warning: Long post…
This post could be part three of the series on sexual identity therapy and neutrality but I chose this title because I want to focus on one specific issue, at least in my mind, with telling psychotherapy clients that “our bodies tell us who we are.” Saying something like this to a client is the expression of a natural law argument that is expressed by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi in his article “Why I Am Not a Neutral Therapist.”
Our Bodies Tell Us Who We Are
Philosophically, I am an essentialist — not a social constructionist: I believe that gender identity and sexual orientation are grounded in biological reality. The body tells us who we are, and we cannot “construct” — assemble or disassemble — a different reality in which gender and sexual identity are out of synchrony with biology.
The belief that humanity is designed for heterosexuality has been shaped by age-old religious and cultural forces, which must be respected as a welcome aspect of intellectual diversity. Our belief is not a “phobia” or pathological fear.
Natural-law philosophy says this view derives from mankind’s collective, intuitive knowledge; a sort of natural, instinctive conscience. This would explain why so many people — even the nonreligious — sense that a gay identity is a false construct.
Clients who already believe a natural law argument would most likely look for a therapist who believed as Dr. Nicolosi does. In that case, I do not see how he could be accused of imposing his values on the client; clients who are committed to this perspective (many conservatives, for example) might not work well with a therapist who did not articulate a similar view. On the worldview front, I suspect many people are directed by their spiritual advisors to look for counselors who are amenable to the teaching of their church. I also suspect, that feminists look for feminist therapists and so on. This will no doubt continue no matter what the professions pronounce.
What I want to raise now are some issues with the natural law argument. Specifically, I propose that if we know who we are via our bodies, then a fairly solid argument can be made against Dr. Nicolosi’s conclusions. He argues that genitalia and procreative capacity is the definer of correct identity. However, there is more to body than genitals and secondary sex characteristics. Brain is a part of body. As an organ of the body, the way the brain functions and is organized must be important as well. I am not here talking about psychological constructionism or the constructed opinion of a person that he/she is gay or straight, male or female. I am talking about the automatic response of the brain to triggers both sexual and otherwise that differentiate gay and straight people. In the research available, brain reactions differentiate people based on sexual preferences. In other words, if the body tells us who we are, and brain is body, then our brains tell us whether we like the same sex, the opposite one, or both. And our brains do this well before we have time to think about it.
I have written before about the pheromone studies conducted by a team led by Ivanka Savic from Sweden. Here is what I wrote about their study of lesbians:
This study shows that sexual orientation at the extreme (5-6 Kinsey scale) differentiates how the brain responds to a putative pheromone. The response from lesbians is not as clear cut as gay males. Lesbians process estrogen derived pheromones both in the normal olfactory fashion and via the hypothalamus (a link in the sexual response). The participants did not experience any sexual response so it is interesting that these lesbians’ brains registered the pheromones in a different way than did straight women. Lesbians were somewhat like straight men but not exactly like them. The reference is: Berglund, H., Lindstro”m, P., & Savic, I. (2006). Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Science, Early Edition (www.pnas.org).
I also reviewed their initial study of males:
• The study does show involuntary hypothalamic response associated with self-assessed sexual orientation
• The study shows that gay males do react to the estrogen condition but in a different manner than they react to the testosterone condition
• The study cannot shed light on the complicated question of whether sexual orientation of the participants is hard wired.
• The brains of these participants may have acquired a sexual response to these chemicals as the result of past sexual experience. In other word, the response described in this study could well have been learned.
• If these results hold up, this could explain why varying sexual attractions seem so “natural.” Also, such conditioning could give insight into why changing sexual attractions is often experienced by those changing sexual preferences as a process of unlearning responses to environmental triggers.
There are other lines of research that also find large involuntary differences in brain response or perceptual response associated with sexual attractions. I could add the brain imaging work of Miichael Bailey which I referenced recently.
As noted above, whether these differences are innate in some way, learned early, or learned gradually through life, they appear to be real, substantial and involuntary. Furthermore, many ex-gay and ex-ex-gays testify to the perceived naturalness of the attractions to the same sex. For these individuals, if their bodies tell them who they are, I suspect they are experiencing mixed messages.
So what are we to make of the research on brain differences? Clearly, for those who are at the extreme ends of sexual orientation continuum, their brains tell them one thing and if they believe natural law, the rest of their bodies tell them something else. Here is one element of dissonance: which part of body to believe? I suppose in an interesting irony, those who go with brain are also following a naturalistic argument — if I feel it or experience it as natural, it must be supposed to be that way. Isn’t that what natural law arguments do? Read again, Dr. Nicolosi:
Natural-law philosophy says this view derives from mankind’s collective, intuitive knowledge; a sort of natural, instinctive conscience. This would explain why so many people — even the nonreligious — sense that a gay identity is a false construct.
For Dr. Nicolosi, what seems natural according to anatomy must be so. For the person arguing from brain research, what seems and feels natural surely must be so as well.
Now it does not seem to me that science can resolve this dilemma of belief and intuition. Science can collate stories of how people feel about their anatomy and inner worlds and report those results, but ultimately, it is up to the individual to weigh the evidence (which certainly includes brain reactions and body make-up) and make a decision. For reproductive anatomy to win out over brain response, one would have to argue that environment, during development, packs a pretty powerful punch in wiring the brain for sexual response. Of the two main theories (reparative drive and exotic becomes erotic), I would say EBE has more empirical support but neither describes the differentiation of brain from neutral (EBE) to gay or straight; or in the case of reparative drive theory, from basically straight to gay. Although I am not arguing for an inborn orientation, I am neither able to describe at the neurological level how the brain differences get there.
Reasoning as I am here, I suppose it might be accurate to say values tell us who we are or more precisely, we get data about who we are from what we value. From this point of view, sexual orientation could be more than what the brain does in response to triggers. It certainly would incorporate brain response and anatomy, but the guidance for action comes from chosen values and beliefs.
Here I am very close to a school of psychological thought known as acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Steven Hayes is often considered the founder of ACT and has been the subject of several popular articles on the subject. Regarding values as reflection of self-direction, Dr. Hayes says:
Values are like directions on a compass. They’re never achieved, but in each and every step they influence the quality of the journey. Values dignify and make more coherent our life course—and they put pain in a proper context. It’s now about something. Let me go back to that movie A Beautiful Mind. It’s only when the hero has to decide between what he values and entanglement with insanity that it’s possible and sensible to accept the delusions; to notice them; and to abandon trying to control them—all in the service of being a husband, father, and a mathematician. In the same way, we only put down our avoidance, addictions, and mental wars because it’s costing us something dear, whatever it is that we want our lives to be about. Without that cost we would be lost.
It’s amazing how often people have never really thought about what they want in their lives. They’ve been fighting a mental war, waiting for life to start, and have never really asked or answered the question of what kind of a life they’re waiting to live. The joyful vision of ACT is that you can start living that very life NOW, with your thoughts, feelings, memories, and sensations. You start that journey by asking what it is that you really want your life to be about.
Where there is conflict between givens, we step up and choose meaning. For some, there will be a synthesis of religious beliefs and sexuality; for others, the conflict will seem like competing sides where one side wins out.
Oh boy! Nicolosis stance can be twisted into all sorts of fashions!!! Is he SURE he wants to say it this way?? I doubt he really understands the gay mind from the gay perspective.
Hmmm… it makes sense. Like when I had an obese client who wanted to get stomach stapling surgery, I should have just told her that her body is telling her who she is, and that natural law has decreed her to die by 45 or so.
Boo,
There are diffenre intepretations for the essentialist and constructionist point of view. Are not gays always saying - “That’s the way I was born?”
Holy smokes!
Throckmorton is back. That post was long but worth every sentence. I gotta read through that a few times.
This would explain why so many people — even the nonreligious — sense that a gay identity is a false construct.
As a not particularly religious guy thats not how I’d put it. My opinion is more of a, “What the heck?” (eyes squinting, scratching head in bewilderment)
Nobody writes about the clash of values and orientation better than Throckmorton. However my main interest is the clash of biology and biology. Every strand of DNA yearns to get into the next generation and yet a tiny but powerful portion of the mind says, “nope.” Which side wins out? The powerful desire for sex or the absolute necessity to reproduce? No human conflict runs deeper.
Whoever figures out the cause of SSA deserves the Nobel Prize.
Drowssap wrote:
“Every strand of DNA yearns to get into the next generation and yet a tiny but powerful portion of the mind says, “nope.” Which side wins out? The powerful desire for sex or the absolute necessity to reproduce? No human conflict runs deeper.”
You anthropomorphize that idea way too much.
And If I were to point out that the mothers and aunts of gay men are more fertile than those who are mothers and aunts of no gay men, would you then accept that your individal fitness argument is simply bunk, because the fitness is increased in several others in the family of the gay man?
Haven’t read this article yet, but I was intrigued by the statement “Our bodies tell us who we are.”
A few weeks ago I had a dream that I met someone I knew as a kid (we were both kids at the time, and I haven’t seen him since). During the course of our conversation, he said, “My body tells me I’m gay.”
I have no idea where that came from, as it’s not the sort of expression I’d ever use or think of using; nor is it an expression I remember ever hearing before.
Anyway, that may or may not have anything to do with the article!
There are diffenre intepretations for the essentialist and constructionist point of view. Are not gays always saying - “That’s the way I was born?”
I can’t speak for all gays, but what I say is “Who cares?”
Drowssap - Thanks for the props; I suspect the NP winner will need to account for several types of SSA.
Lynn David - I am not clear on the effect size of this variable. Do you know the extent of these differences?
Perceptions during infancy and early childhood ,weather physical,mental or emotional, can
result in lifelong fears,addictions sexual proclivities.
Humans are not guided by instinct,but by ideals developed by the ability to think rationally and critically.
Hunger is is a natural indicator that we should eat. If
we allow our emotions to turn hunger into a gluttonous appetite, we stand to develop a myriad of physical problems ;some obvious,others internal. And of course the original emotional (i.e. from the “brain”)
problem can spiral to the point it becomes an inbedded part of our self. When ill effects become apparent ,denial is the first defense. In other words ,
“I was born that way.”. same as the debate on sexuality.
I believe Dr. Nicolosi is correct.
Boo,
“Who cares?”
Because that has been the fulcrum of many gay rights activists argument for GLBT rights. And that is why I personally think rights should be based on something other than biology. (And for anyone reading this, I’ll print again I support GLBT rights)
Lynn David
Gay gene survives because it boosts fertility
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article493806.ece
I call shennanigans on that one for more than a few reasons.
During the 250,000 years that humans existed as hunter gatherers women popped out kids every 18 months. A fertility gene would have been powerful. Today the same gene would be largely insignificant. Are women with 0 children infertile and women with 3 children particularly fertile? That describes 99% of the modern female population. For most of the 20th century choice, not genetic fertility has been the predominate factor in family size. These are the women that Camperio studied.
In any case the study is several years old and quite inexpensive to replicate. It consisted of nothing more than 198 interviews about family size. Why hasn’t he or someone else duplicated it on the same or broader scale? If they confirmed this finding I’m not sure it would match the claim but it would certainly be an interesting and useful piece of information.
Lynn David
If homosexuality was the byproduct of a female fertility gene it would be dependent on fertility and track pretty closely to it. I don’t think it does.
Female fertility in the USA from 1800 to 1990
If one is going to make a “natural law argument” shouldn’t persons who are Intersex be included?
j.
Drowsapp,
Check those births per woman against birth control methods, patents, and contraceptives, and family planning social movements.
Warren, the study was in the popular press at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html
As Drowssap has also pointed out. There it read:
Drowssap wrote:
“I call shennanigans on that one for more than a few reasons. … In any case the study is several years old….”
Yes, people have reasons for not having children now. I happen to be the only child, so my mother goes against the grain. But then if you take into consideration that after the car wreck on her honeymoon the doctors told her she could no longer conceive…. It seems that despite the change in overall rate, a factor which increases fertility still remains. Fertility can be a catchall for several factors, one of which might be the fitness of the child as carried in the womb which could result in an effect to lower child mortality rates.
Gee, three years old, and I can’t get the anti-gay crowd from stop using opinionated rhetoric masquerading as evidenciary fact from books that were written in the 1970s.
Mary
Check those births per woman against birth control methods, patents, and contraceptives, and family planning social movements.
Thats work for professionals. Actual research is way over my meager skills.
Lynn David
If fertility means “more likely to get pregnant” I’m not buying it. Birth rates are plumeting worldwide which pretty much kills that hypothesis (and any gene involved).
If fertility means “more pregnancies that survive to childbirth” I become a lot more interested. This indicates something about the mother’s immune system which is directly in line with other recent findings.
Autism and Schiz triggered by mother’s immune response to common flu virus, mechanism and protein (Interleuken 6) identified
http://www.autismconnect.org/news.asp?section=00010001&itemtype=news&id=6252
This story is everywhere if you google.
I wish somebody would attempt to replicate the Italian study on a broad scale. This is old news, why doesn’t the guy do it himself? I wonder if he did and it didn’t pan out so he didn’t publish. I have no idea why this easy to check hypothesis sort of died.
Dr. Throckmorton
I suspect the NP winner will need to account for several types of SSA.
Agreed. How the numbers break down between genes, environment, and socialization will be the interesting part.
Lynn David
As much as I don’t believe in the gay gene theory as a common reason for SSA it takes no mental gymnastics to assume that A FEW people are gay exclusively because of genetics. Genes have been shown to work that way in many different areas.
I suspect the NP winner will need to account for several types of SSA.
Yes, because there are so many and also many dimensions to account for.
Lynn David - The study is intriguing but may not actually confirm much. First of all:
I doubt these are very big effect sizes. And when you have small effects, sampling is critical. I will have to look at this study to find out what they asked of participants. The volunteer effect was huge in the early twin studies and it could very well be impactful here.
Warren
Here is an example of someone who might “be gay” due to personality quirks, not necessarily biology.
Lou Pearlman, creator of Backstreet Boys and other bands alleged to have sexually harassed and exploited teenage boys.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm
Maybe he’s gay, but I think it’s just as likely that he isn’t. His behavior could easily be caused by a combination of low character, narcisism, and a personality that enjoys exploiting powerless and desperate people. Could his behavior harm vulnerable kids and motivate them to reenact what they experienced once they become adults? It’s certainly possible. Everybody involved in this sad story could probably use some therapy.
Drowssap,
This is very interesting and certainly sounds logical to me. There are so many variables and dimensions to this particular subject and the effects it has on ALL those involved that it should never be talked about in general terms nor have periods put where there should be commas. Thank you for your perspective on this - I do agree with you.
Ann
You are too kind. I think we’ll start to get the very beginnings of answers in a few more years. In two or three more decades this will probably be in the history books one way or the other.
But I wanna know now!!! I guess this is where patience comes in.
I’m a total layman in these areas but I’m thinking that our sex drive itself (as felt and expressed in our lower body) is essentially without direction. The direction comes, IMHO, almost entirely from the brain. I further believe that the brain’s wiring is determined by conclusions the individual has reached based on what they’ve ‘learned’. So many variables!
How we learn though is amazing. The child starts with “Look”…wanting to know the name of what they’re pointing at. “Why?” comes very shortly after.
But, while a lot of learning comes from your basic ’show ‘n tell’ and Q & A, so much more is from observation. What they see and hear at home, in church, at school, on the playground, watching TV, watching videos, on the bus (think school vs city), magazines, ads, commercials, in parks, at sporting events….just drinking it in. Filtering it and filing to the best of their abilities and it all becomes a part of their whole sense of self. What a child (or an adult) actually experiences or observes will usually outweigh anything they simply hear…no matter how many times they hear it.
But I believe that therapy can assist in refiltering and refiling if an adult perceives they came to some faulty conclusions. I always saw myself as different. The shortest, the blonde, the non-competitive, the bookish…as a child. Later, the hippie/peacefreak in a family of with 3 Marines. In grade school, I found 5 or 6 other uncool kids and we were different together.
Different became my enemy. It was the blame for all the horrible traumas of my adolescence. I was different from the images on TV too. And I didn’t relate at all to how TV women wanted to be treated or how real men were supposed to act. Different. I must be gay. Somewhere the two interchanged and I came to believe that I was different because I was gay. This didn’t do much to alleviate my traumas but it did afford me a sense of direction. (Have I ever mentioned that I was trying to get a Gay Lib group at my community college where my brother was president of the only frat?)
It wasn’t long afterwards though that I realized, to my chagrin, that I was an ‘odd duck’ in the gay pond too! Different didn’t mean I was gay; different meant different. After I became a Christian, I actually embraced it as ‘my gift of uniqueness’.
I wonder: What’s the potential effect of these thought/brain shifts on the rest of the body? LOL! If I believe I’m gay will my unconscious toe-tapping extend to Cher songs? (And, God forbid, not in a stall at the airport!)
Good post Eddy,
From my experience people that feel different probably ARE different, but probably not to a massive degree.
For example someone with 10% more natural ability at football may realize they have a talent and begin to practice. This kid may ultimately end up with 100% more skill than other kids.
Kids that are a little different also have the extra burden of being taunted and picked on by “normal” kids. This also pushes kids in alternate directions.
Kids that are a little different also have the extra burden of being taunted and picked on by “normal” kids. This also pushes kids in alternate directions.
This theory always makes me chuckle. I don’t recall being picked on by “normal” kids at all. In fact, if I recall correctly, I was friends with the bullies, the jocks, and the nerds. Hmmm, maybe they were all pushing me in different directions.
Timothy Kincaid
I wasn’t infering that being picked on or bullied could make somebody gay. I meant it could make a kid feel different or push him in a nonmainstream way.
Put simply, a kid starts out 10% different. Other kids notice the difference and taunt him. Final result, somebody who is 100% different.
I’m not refering to sexual orientation. I believe that for most people SSA is already set in motion before birth or right after.
Timothy Kincaid
Let me add something to that last post.
I believe that most men are handed OSA or SSA wiring before birth or shortly thereafter. However I do feel there is evidence that a small percentage of boys have some wiggle room. Three out of four boys with clinical level GID become gay but somehow a few become straight. I’m not saying that one in four are straight because some of that 25% are probably in the closet. Still, a small percent of boys with GID grow up to be straight. I’ve read about this phenomenon and talked to a guy who went through it. During childhood he experienced strong GID and fantasized about being a woman every single day. At puberty his brain masculinized and his GID disappeared. He was gay, but his feelings of body mismatch and desire for feminine things was gone. He said it was a tremendous relief to be free of the torment of feeling like a girl stuck in a boy’s body. That story is the norm for boys wth GID. However in a few boys it appears that something happens during masculinization and the OSA switch is flipped on.
I believe that is where socialization comes into play. I don’t think forcing a kid to play football and army is going to make him straight. However a low stress, supportive, loving, stable home and social environment might tip the scales a few percentage points back towards OSA. When the mind is busy masculinizing parents, relatives, friends, etc. shouldn’t slow it down with stress, pressure or other emotional speed bumps. Maybe it will have the energy and ability to flip the SSA/OSA switch, maybe not.
Drowssap and Timothy: LOL! Believe it or not, I didn’t even mention taunting or bullying in my post. I was trying to stay with the topic and consider how the brain can experience major changes that could then impact both behaviors and impulses. The bigger point I wanted to make was that the brain is receiving impressions from a variety of sources almost constantly. The individual processes these impressions and the impressions, in turn, help to form conclusions and perceptions. The conclusions and perceptions shape a person’s response to their everyday world. So, if refiltering happens and the conclusions and perceptions change, then behaviors and impulses would also change as a result. Could something as intrinsic as sexual direction be changed through such a process? To what extent? Would it vary by individual? If so, what factors impact the speed and degree of the change?
Eddy
As for degree of change in adults I think its a completely different ballgame than what is possible with kids. I’m not sure if adults can “rewire” themselves. More specifically I believe an as yet to be determined neurotransmitter isn’t being produced or absorbed in men with SSA. I guess we’ll find out if/when they discover it. Even with biology fully set people still have control over the perception of their feelings. Perception is a big part of everything and for some people thats enough to be happy. For others, No Way Jose.
Most straight guys find a way to override the wiring that tells them to sleep with everything they see. This probably has to do with an adjustment of perception and expectation. Are most straight guys miserable because society makes them override their biology? Well… maybe.
Drowssap–
Re the statement “Most straight guys find a way to override the wiring that tells them to sleep with everything they see.” I’m thinking that statement either needs support or clarifiers. 1) In the context of this blog, it seems to suggest that gay guys DON’T try to curb impulses towards promiscuity. I’m not sure you we’re going there. 2) So, significantly more than 50% (”most”) straight guys don’t try to ’sleep with everything they see’. If you are speaking from actual statistics, I’m hoping they differentiated between straight single and straight married…and perhaps between younger and older. (In the circles I’ve travelled, very few straight single men are virgins beyond age 20. Am I seeing an unnaturally sexually active microcosm? If not, how does this reconcile with your statement?)
Eddy
From Tim and your comments I can tell I’m being particularly unclear in this thread.
I was trying to be a Devil’s advocate about SSA.
Straight guys are programmed at birth to desire sex with every woman they see.
Gay men are biologically programmed to desire sex with men.
Society forces both groups to live outside of their natural biology.
LOL! Okay - we have altered our sexuality. Duh!??? We have since recorded history been putting restrictions, demands, and “do’s and dont’s” on our sexuality. It does not matter if you are gay, straight, male, female, child, elderly - etc… (or animal) -
I think Mary figured out the point I was trying to play devil’s advocate with.
If straight men are socialized to be monogomous what is morally wrong with socializing gay men to act straight? Both social constructs run counter to each groups sex drive.
I’m not saying this will or ever should happen. But theoretically speaking what is the difference?
also, aren’t we socialized to do other things - like be potty trained, wear clothes, eat with utensils, practice good hygiene, follow rules, etc.? Is that part of civilization or discipline or being socialized or all three? None of us are born with that knowledge - we learn it.
It appears no one actually wants to discuss the questions I raised in 51172 and 51657. I’ll save my questions for my journal–although other insight would have been nice–and catch you all on another thread.
I would agree Ann and will take this a step further in that much of what we do in Education is socialization. What we learn in school is not always easy to come by, it takes some hard work and effort. There are some that feel that the effort is not worthwhile and that if it takes effort it is not for you. That mentality is prevelant in our schools today and is damaging many young people.
There are many things that we do to maintain our civilization that do require some level of learning and effort. These things are not inborn, but they are worth learning if we want to live in a civilized society and be able to live with others. One thing that we need to unlearn is self-centerness, which is a childish trait we all seem to possess.
Eddy,
I am sorry I didn’t respond - I will read them again and write back asap, ok ?
One thing that we need to unlearn is self-centerness, which is a childish trait we all seem to possess.
VERY well said and SO true!
Eddy,
Regarding #51172 - I guess I was interrupted when I started to read this because I do remember the first part. I also think you are “right on the money” and have always felt the same thoughts about how we learn things and filter them and experience them and how that can be perceived to be the truth rather than just an experience that we accept temporarily or reject all together. The first time I heard Dr. Throckmorton talk about temperment, it somehow spoke to what I knew but didn’t have the words for. We can all have the same experiences or set of circumstances yet it is how we perceive them and feel them that determines what we do with them.
This next sentence is so powerful -
“But I believe that therapy can assist in refiltering and refiling if an adult perceives they came to some faulty conclusions.”
This is where one’s maturity and autonomy comes into play - if they feel they have come to some faulty conclusions based on “feelings and perceptions” then they have the right to seek treatment with an unbiased therapist that only has their client’s well being in mind during any interview and subsequent therapy.
As far as your uniqueness - I like it a lot and find the word unique a much better description for all of us who are a little “different”.
Could something as intrinsic as sexual direction be changed through such a process? To what extent? Would it vary by individual? If so, what factors impact the speed and degree of the change?
Eddy,
I think that anything that is learned can be unlearned. The degree and dimension to that unlearning can come in various ways and have different satisfaction levels for each person. Again, temperment, desire and motivation, support and encouragement all play a part as to the extent any change is successful. Sometimes a shift or change can mean to modify or cease a behavior we find not in alignmentment with our values rather than a complete or consistant change in thought. I think it is a very personal and individual dynamic and would absolutely vary between one person to another.
Drowsap
If straight men are socialized to be monogomous what is morally wrong with socializing gay men to act straight? Both social constructs run counter to each groups sex drive.
If by “act straight” you mean engage in heterosexual sex, you are discussing two incomparable things. One is passively avoiding a pleasurable thing (ie sex with someone desired) and the other is actively performing an non-pleasurable thing (ie sex with someone undesired). Foregoing pleasure is not the same as engaging in the unpleasant. Avoiding ice cream is not comparable to eating cockroaches.
Eddy,
So, if refiltering happens and the conclusions and perceptions change, then behaviors and impulses would also change as a result. Could something as intrinsic as sexual direction be changed through such a process? To what extent? Would it vary by individual? If so, what factors impact the speed and degree of the change?
Jones and Yarhouse argue that in some small percentage of highly motivated individuals, sexual direction can be changed.
However, the extent seems on average to be very little (a single Kinsey point) and clearly depends on the individual and is determined by factors outside the individual’s control. And the best expected end result is far from what most of us would call “straight”.
So J&Y would answer you with a “yes”. I would be inclined to answer you with a “not likely”.
Drowsap - I am assuming by the things you write that you do not have SSA nor have ever been through the process of changing??
Mary
I am assuming by the things you write that you do not have SSA nor have ever been through the process of changing??
Well… I guess its time for me to come out of the closet. I must admit I am hopelessly straight. I’ve known it since I was a little kid.
Yeah, the changing process never includes teaching gay men to ACT straight.
Timothy Kincaid
Foregoing pleasure is not the same as engaging in the unpleasant.
OK, interesting point.
Mary
Yeah, the changing process never includes teaching gay men to ACT straight.
Hey don’t read too much into a sloppy post. I meant live a hetero lifestyle.
Then please be more careful and respectful of the time you choose to use when addressing this very real issue for others. There is nothing sloppy in the lives of people who seek a better understanding of themselves.
isn’t engaging in the unpleasant subjective? I don’t think it is unpleasant for everyone.
I am pretty sure Drowssap meant no disrespect…
Ann, what is unpleasant varies from person to person but if something is unpleasant, I doubt it clarifies much to engage in a discussion of how subjective the unpleasantness is. My dislike for order is subjective and persistent. However, for someone else on the orderly side of life, being in my office would be just as unpleasant.
Dr. Throckmorton,
I’m very aware that each person experiences unpleasantness differently. That is what I was saying. I also had no plans of engaging in a conversation about it. I think it is important to clarify that an unpleasant experience is subjective and should not be generalized as being the same for everyone in similar circumstances.
Warren,
Disrespect not intended doesn’t matter - it was laziness to be involved in a discussion on this blog and use that kind of language and then just wave it off as sloppy.
In discussing unpleasantness and it’s subjectivity, let us remember that heterosexual sexual interaction is as uncomfortable, disconcerting, and feels just as “wrong” to many (if not most) gay people as would homosexual sexual interaction to most straight people.
Mary
You are misreading my post. I can assure you that I don’t have a malicious or anti-gay bone in my body.
I don’t think that you do - I think you have alot of misunderstanding about the process of changing. And I find it offensive when you say such things. With all the effort that is put into getting the correct information out - someone like you comes in and says something like “act”. WOW!!! Thank you for belittling my efforts and the efforts of sooooo many others. Your brand of “sloppiness” is just what the anti ex gay machine needs to spin more misinformation.
As I said earlier, I’ll be elsewhere. It’s plain that this brutal detour shows no sign of waning.
Yes, I would like to see discussion move back to the post. I am proposing that “bodies telling us who we are” can lead to multiple messages. When I feel something I do not value, what do I do? Say it is who I am? Or what? It is certainly evidence as to my essence but are my inclinations alone my essence?
Mary
Alright, fair enough I heard you.
Timothy–
I loved the cockroach analogy…gets that particular point across very well! But, LOL, I woke up thinking of broccoli. I mean EVERYBODY has a distaste for cockroaches. But with broccoli…some hate it, some love it, some used to hate it and have grown to like it, some only like it certain ways while still others like it any way they can get it. But, I agree it’s foolish to force it on someone while they find it distasteful.
Eddy,
That is such a good point. What we like and dislke and how that evolves or changes over the course of a lifetime is so personal and individual and should never be diminished or limited by blanket statements or generalizations. That is what I was saying in my earlier comment. I also cannot think of too many things worse than feeling like something is being forced on you that you don’t want or like - I never said anything to the contrary but I see that it was unfortunately interpreted that way.
Two Points:
1. Aren’t several comments focusing on what is pleasurable/unpleasurable and ignoring what may be good or bad? Shouldn’t there be some discussion about doing what is “good” for you and determining what that might be objectively? I realize that this may take us into some complicated philosophical discussions but they would at least bring about a challenge to the hedonistic philosophy apparently being accepted by default.
I know that the dislike of eating locusts brings about massive starvation in parts of Africa where locust plagues consume the crops.
2. There are a lot of comments related to “wiring.” Shouldn’t we avoid assumptions of “hard wiring” until such wiring has been identified? You may wish to run studies on the existence of unicorns but should avoid assuming their existence until the evidence is established. It does not make it any more rational to presume that there are only a very few unicorns.
The evident “hard wiring” is that you are heterosexual unless you are “intersex.” Our bodies tell us which we are. The question of “who” or “what” we are is a much deeper philosophical issue and cannot be reduced to a mere consideration of sexual attraction.
José Solano
Shouldn’t we avoid assumptions of “hard wiring” until such wiring has been identified?
Agreed but in a limited way. Sheep and humans are the only two species that have large numbers of males who exhibit exclusive, lifetime SSA from birth. It goes without saying that sheep are acting on instinct, not socialization. I’m not suggesting this is genetic but it AT LEAST appears to have a biological foundation.
Whether feelings of SSA can be overcome is another question. I would imagine that the answer depends on an individual’s biology and personality.
Example
Group A) These people slave away at a lousy job until retirement.
Group B) These people find a way to enjoy themselves and discover satisfaction in the same situation.
Group C) These people say, “to hell with this” and find a new job.
Group A = Old school in the closet gays
Group B = Happy ex-gays, probably with families
Group C = Mainstream LGBT
Jose’–
You said, “I realize that this may take us into some complicated philosophical discussions but they would at least bring about a challenge to the hedonistic philosophy apparently being accepted by default.”
A few points: ‘this may take us’…are you speaking of this blogsite? I’ve seen your name pop up once in awhile but thought of you as a visitor rather than someone ready to take part in complicated discussion.
Re the ‘complicated philosophical discussions’: I think if you browse a few of the other topics on the site you’ll see that we have attempted and sometimes succeeded at complicated philosophical rhetoric.
Re the ‘hedonistic philosophy apparently being accepted by default’. LOL! I can only remember a time or two when ALL of us here were in agreement. We actually butt heads so often that most people wonder if we could ever agree on anything…I’m puzzled by what philosophy you think we’ve ‘accepted by default’.
We do tend to steer away from the standard arguments that have been presented by ‘both sides’ for the past few decades and it does get philosophical…in my book, although we disagree on some of the biggest issues, both Timothy Kincaid and JAG can be some of the most philosophical reading I’ve found on these issues.
I must also warn you if you do pursue those discussions here, we have BADD. (Blog Attention Deficit Disorder) The discussion rarely reaches any resolve before being derailed and, if it’s a fiery topic, the discussion will erupt on several threads at once–regardless of the actual topic. We’d welcome a new voice, though. Perhaps you could succeed (in keeping us on track and focussed) where others have failed.
Ann–
Didn’t mean to ignore your comments. (or Timothy’s) I was waiting to see if anyone had anything new or unusual to add to the mix. I thought 52336 was very well stated. (LOL! I forgot, I did kind of respond to Timothy this morning with my broccoli musings.)
Hi Eddy,
This is my first visit to this blog and I’m only referring to this thread. Please don’t laugh too loudly as it could hurt someone’s feelings.
I’m going to attempt to steer back to the post topic by commenting on a quote Warren stated:
“When I feel something I do not value, what do I do? Say it is who I am? Or what? It is certainly evidence as to my essence but are my inclinations alone my essence?”
Are your inclinations alone your “essence,” I would say not. We are a combination of factors, but these tend to be guided by our inclinations and abilities. I went into academics, for example, because schooling was always a strength. I also love athletics, and cycle, do regular weight workouts, etc..
Why do I mention these things? Because for me, although I can find pleasure in the arts…nothing, but nothing can give me the satisfaction of clicking into my pedals and doing a 40 mile ride. I realize not everyone likes this…but my body loves exertion, and being worked regularly…when it doesn’t get this (due to illness, or papers to grade) I become grumpy, “not myself,” and frankly down in the dumps.
We look to our bodies to tell us when we are “pushing too hard,” when we are ill, and when we need to slow down (pain). We enjoy when we are tickled by humor and our body laughs, and when we are wooed and our bodies get butterflies in delight. They are a tool that seems to shed light on our deeper person, a tool that assists us in successfully navigating our world. Whether following an intellectual gift, choosing sexual partners, or simply avoiding things that cause us physical pain. We trust out bodies, and watch as others do the same since we are very young…using it as a barometer to life’s undertakings.
So while I do not think that our bodies tell us “everything,” I think they do inform us greatly. We pay attention to them, and they guide us in innumerable ways.
When our beliefs do not meld with our inclinations, I think this is what makes the ex-gay dilemma so very difficult, and the therapy of change so very challenging…it almost seems as if we are expecting individuals (or they expect themselves) to fight against something they have learned to rely on…to trust in so many other basic ways (as I’ve described above). With the person seeking to become ex-gay, their cognitive realities have to directly challenge their internal inclinations. To get to the goal of change, they have to work against what we have learned to trust, and what has guided all of us in so many other essential ways.
While I think that we can “train” our bodies not to respond as we might like (not hit the person who angers us), the internal experience of rage or anger is difficult to take on. This is what the person seeking orientation change is attempting - not only to seek to alter behavior, but the inclinations. A more difficult path I could not imagine.
Jose–
I realize I’ve offended you. I’m sorry. It was not intentional. I’m glad you called me on it or I wouldn’t have even seen it.
I think I’m a bit blog-bleary. I visit the site almost every day and I’m often involved in several of the different discussions simultaneously. Anyway, this particular topic thread started ten days ago…and I forgot there were so many comments. So I come in, and only update myself on the new posts. I was oblivious to the possibility of someone new coming in and reading it all. Totally bad (without the extra d) on my part. Please forgive me.
Eddy
Yeah, maybe I’m blog weary as well. I read your post that we weren’t discussing your point and my mind was saying, “huh?” I thought we were.
naptime
Drowssap -
I think “they” - whoever they are - should win a prize if they discover the cause for SSA OR OSA!!!!
Everyone,
Changing isn’t always a bad thing, but I was just thinking about how often we try to change things about ourselves that we don’t like, such as: nose, face, hair, breasts, wrinkles, emotions, behaviors - some have even tried changing skin color. I’m amazed, sometimes, at what we can change - AND, what we can’t.
Ooops - I forgot about changing gender!
It’s Ok Eddy. No offense, just a little surprised.
Hi Drowssap,
— Animals do a great many things that “instincts” might motivate to obtain pleasure and power (dominance). We know that a certain percentage of dogs enjoy having sex with humans but could that be defined as a genetic/biological trait? There is often a blending of power and sexual instincts. I’m only acquainted with the secondary sources on sheep studies and observations. I’ve read that the brains of these homosexual rams are smaller than those of heterosexual rams, about the same size of ewes. We don’t know if the behavior caused brain shrinkage. Can they predict from babies which will grow up with homosexual urges? It’s also peculiar because they are not acting like females. Are their rams who seek out being penetrated (receptive) by other rams or is it only rams desiring to penetrate other rams? Are there consistently “lesbian” ewes also seeking to mount or be mounted by other ewes. Are there any suggestions about lesbianism from sheep or just observations of male homosexuality?
We know of bonobos chimps and other animals that engage in “sort of” homosexual, incestuous, and pedophile relationships. It is not certain whether or not these behaviors are genetic/biological or learned or both. Behaviors such as the migration patterns of birds may be acquired over long periods of time and generations. It may not be “hard wired” at all.
It is good that people ask lots of questions related to the sheep studies and be careful not to assume that because black widow spiders kill their mates that this instinctual drive could somehow correspond to women who might kill their husbands. Human beings have the capacity to develop, discover or obtain a value system that helps them rise above the desire driven life, beyond concupiscence.
My first point related to what a human being’s behavior “should” be over and above what is pleasurable. An objective value system should drive the behavior but this objectivity would generally be in harmony with the anatomical/physiological condition. I say “generally” because the value system may call for self-sacrifice.
The perspective of ACT, with it’s self-evaluative question, “What is it that you really want your life to be about,” may fall short of the discovery of what your life should be, as what it should be may be totally different from what you might want.
Jose,
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your post above. I think everyone is going to have a different idea/belief regarding what their lives “should” be about. I’m not sure if you were trying to say this or not, but homosexual/gay couples are not simply together due to pleasure. These couples usually want the same things their heterosexual counterparts have, and they involve a great deal more than simple pleasure. Relationships, gay or straight, require love, self-sacrifice, honesty, trust, etc…
There are gay AND straight people whose sole aim is pleasure, but there are also many who want more than that.
José Solano
Animals do exhibit all different kinds of seemingly sexual behavior. You mentioned dogs rubbing up against humans. We don’t know what is going on in the dog’s mind, it may or may not be sexual.
But seemingly peculiar behavior that may or may not be sexual isn’t the same thing as exclusive, lifelong behavior. Male dogs will mount each other to show dominance but they’ll also fight over females in heat. “Gay” sheep have no interest in female sheep at all. This exclusive, lifelong SSA in humans and sheep is what scientists find so fascinating. I should mention that gay sheep have no offspring. From a biological perspective thats fascinating.
What people should do with SSA is another matter. Thats individual choice.
Jose -
“We know of bonobos chimps and other animals that engage in “sort of” homosexual, incestuous, and pedophile relationships.”
You didn’t include the variations of heterosexual behavior in your listing…or perhaps you classify the behaviors above together? I’m hoping not.
Please do some reading on homosexuality within various species…your examination of it is a bit off base with the research. There is no “sort of” about it in many species. We have seen long-term, short-term, monogamous, non-monogamous etc…same-sex partnerships in various species. Some form of homosexuality has been seen in over 300-400 species. Some as “instinctual” as dragonflies. I would be happy to give you specific studies to refer to with a number of species, and have listed multiple studies throughout the blog.
You also stated:
“My first point related to what a human being’s behavior “should” be over and above what is pleasurable.”
Same-sex couples are as complex as their heterosexual counteraparts, with motivations for their behavior being equally so. I understand why some people have a faith which would dictate that their behavior be non-homosexual, some use their faith to proscribe what they should or should not eat, etc…
However, I would be clear that just because this is how *you* perceive it is how someone “should” act, does not mean that individuals of a same-sex orientation cannot find Christian living within their own faith.
As of yet I haven’t heard an argument, aside from personal faith applied to self, that justifies how one “should” behave in prescribing heterosexuality…and one person’s faith is not the appropriate barometer for the behavior of others. Especially if that person’s behavior harms no one, and is consistent with their faith.
ugh…I hate my own spelling mistakes…my apologies for the above.
jag
To the best of my knowledge humans and sheep are the only two species where large portions of the male populations (1% or more) exhibit exclusive and lifelong SSA.
I’ve read about horses, dogs, monkeys and penguins but it isn’t the same thing.
Gay Penguins Break Up
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169653,00.html
There is nothing situational about gay sheep. They exhibit exclusive SSA for a lifetime. Thats what makes them particularly interesting to scientists.
Drowssap -
Animal comparisons only go so far - humans are not like other animals in many other ways as well.
Jag advises me: “Please do some reading on homosexuality within various species….” Thank you. I have.
Thank you Drowssap for making that distinction. This is why I was cautiously saying “sort of” in the cases of bonobos chimps, etc. I am particularly fascinated by what is occurring with sheep and as I have only read secondary sources perhaps you can refer me to where I might find the primary sources. Perhaps you can answer some of those specific questions I asked. Is this “exclusivity” observed only in rams or is it noted in some ewes? Are there genetic/biological features that can allow people to predict from birth which rams will be exclusively homosexual? Are there rams that are exclusively receptors, that is, imitating females seeking to be mounted? Is this a universal phenomenon among sheep? I’ve read it occurs among bighorn sheep. Does one find a similar percentage among sheep anywhere? How about goats? They are closely related to sheep.
I’m here to learn and as you understand, to learn what’s really happening it’s important to ask the right questions and avoid jumping to conclusions.
When I have the opportunity I’ll return to the question related to what human beings “should” do (categorical imperatives) and how such imperative judgments may be derived by the reasoning mind. I think the examination of both these topics speak to the issue of this post.
Hi Jayhuck,
Yes, that’s true, people of all orientations may be driven by their desires, some more than others. I’m just reflecting on some of the statements in the post and certain comments while trying to be “blog comment brief.” There is no insinuation about homosexuals being more pleasure seekers than heterosexuals. I suspect they may be exactly the same in this respect.
Jose - Good to have you along. You said:
Practically, these are very similar questions. When I speak of values, I am speaking of a chosen direction. People may chose to pursue heterosexuality or celibacy because they believe it to be the best course, even if they do not want it in the sense of desire. It doesn’t work quite the same way for someone who is same-sex attracted and identifies as gay. I think for them it seems natural and the pursuit of integrity with that becomes a value. I do not see it as of necessity choosing pleasure over value for many — especially those who frequent this blog.
Regarding “wiring” of brain, I do not need to assest that such sexual brain responses are determined by pre-natal factors in order to have trouble with a natural law rejection of a gay identity. We have lots of evidence that however sexual response is achieved, it is difficult to alter once achieved. Since we do not have any ability to map out a learning explanation for such wiring, we should be humble about the mechanisms. Saying our body tells us who we are but leaving out brain as body seems incomplete to me.
The way out I advocate in the post is to recognize the human capacity for value driven self-reflection.
Eddy - I would like to think of something to say in response to your thoughts on Cher and toe tapping but I am inadequate to the task.
How about Larry Craig doing “If I could turn back time”?
José Solano
There are a billion gay sheep links and here is a decent one.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html
Here are some additional gay sheep data points if they aren’t in the Time piece.
Gay sheep pop up much like gay humans. There isn’t an obvious chain of heredity.
Gay sheep aren’t necessarily “feminine.” The want to mount other male sheep.
Gay sheep have no offspring.
Its only a matter of time until Roselli or someone else clones a gay sheep.
If the clone is gay we’ve got our answer, genetics
if the clone is straight we’ve got it narrowed down to some factor in the environment, probably early exposure to a virus or germ.
Realistically they’ll make several clones at once. Watch for this one because when it happens it will be seismic one way or the other. My guesstimator says this research will be done and released within 5 years.
How about Larry Craig doing “If I could turn back time”?
Would the next line be - “If I could find a way”…not to get caught!?
jayhuck
Its wrong to project human motives on an animal’s actions. On that I agree 100%.
But in the specific case of gay sheep they are 100% gay for a lifetime. That eliminates a lot of situational variables. If 1 sheep in a thousand were gay it wouldn’t be all that interesting. If some sheep were situationally gay or bisexual it wouldn’t be all that interesting. But several percent are exclusively gay for their entire lives. That makes it pretty darned interesting.
Hi Warren,
For the sake of clarification I think the distinction needs to be drawn because in the former it is I who am determining, making the conclusions and establishing the values, while in the latter these are being brought to me in some compelling manner. I do not make-up what is of value but am rather instructed what is of value in such a way that I am convicted. This leaves open the door to consider and/or accept that the ultimate values are revealed rather than subjectively construed. As such they come across as absolutes rather than relative truths and realizations. This does not mean that through the deceptive powers of human machinations these revealed values cannot be resisted and rejected, especially if they demand a complete reevaluation of our self-constructed value system. When such rejections occur one may, or at least certain people may, observe personality disorders and varied neurotic behaviors—to use an old expression. Not all value systems are the same or of equal value.
I’m having a little difficulty clearly understanding what you say in your next to last paragraph and that may be because I’m focusing too much on the terminology rather than your overall meaning. There are all sorts of “sexual response(s)” and when adopted (achieved?) over a long period of time they are very difficult to alter. This extends from masturbation and viewing pornography to adultery or pedophilia and what have you. Once these desire driven, pleasure driven practices are ingrained they may appear natural and a justification process is developed that becomes a value system, however objectively valueless they may be. They may appear natural, even as thumb sucking may be. Yet even if it is concluded that they, or some are indeed “natural,” the question can still be raised, “So what?” So what for a meaningful and objectively value-full, valuable life? The human being should have greater capacity to resist “instincts” or natural compulsions than sheep or black widow spiders. But one must have a reason to resist.
I like the expression “value driven self-reflection” but everything rests on what it is that the person values.
Thanks Drowssap for your response. I know of the zillions of “gay sheep” sites and they are very similar to the one you cited, but I was hoping you might know of a primary source.
Are you able to directly answer any of the questions I asked? You come close when you say, “Gay sheep aren’t necessarily ‘feminine.’ The want to mount other male sheep.” The ain’t “necessarily” part sounds a little strange but already one can recognize a huge difference from how homosexuality manifests itself among humans.
Thanks again.
I’m wondering–did the sheep studies take parental/sibling/peer pressures into account? How many sheep were monitored? Were the gay sheep monogamous or did they mount other males indiscrimately? What have the studies revealed about the lesbian sheep? Is that 1% also–or is it significantly more or less? There seems to be increased ‘incidental homosexuality’ among men and women who are incarcerated? Were these free roaming sheep or were they captives? (Domesticated vs non-domesticated.)
Drowssap -
I absolutely agree - it IS interesting
- it just can’t tell us much, if anything, about humans
Drowssap -
I take that back, it can tell us some things about humans, I’m just not sure how much. Forgive me for going off on a tangent here - It is interesting to see percentages such as these and compare them to what we know about the incidence of homosexuality in the human population. I remember reading on Wikipedia that, somewhere around 2.5 - 7% of the population identifies as homosexual - although we’ll probably never have a solid percentage because there is a good chance that people are under-reporting for fear of being “outed”, or they may not even be out themselves yet, or they are bisexual, etc…. Conservatives will tend to use the lower numbers and progressives will tend to use the higher numbers - “the world may NEVER know”
jayhuck
Agreed, SSA in sheep and humans will be different. But a clear understanding of SSA in sheep might give us a lot of clues for humans. If a particular nucleus in the hypothalamus is small in the sheep and it is also small in humans it could be a huge find.
José Solano
Sadly I must admit my knowledge of gay sheep does not extend past what I read in the popular press. If you want original research you could check pub.med. Sometimes I run across something cool on that site.
Jose,
I do not make-up what is of value but am rather instructed what is of value in such a way that I am convicted. This leaves open the door to consider and/or accept that the ultimate values are revealed rather than subjectively construed.
The problem with proclaiming revealed values is that one either must assume that one is wiser/holier/luckier than others who have revealed values that differ from one’s own. One needs to ask, “Do I know the true values because I was born in 20th Century America rather than 1500 BC Egypt? Were the situation reverse would my revealed values include offering children to the crocodile god?” Or perhaps one can ask, “Am I wiser than the theologian and scholar who is proficient in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic who disagrees with my revealed values? ” or “Does God reveal more to me than he does to Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, or the Dalai Lama, all of whom differ from me in some items of faith but all of whom have shown greater devotion to their faith?”
Ulitimately, to claim that one’s own values are the ones that are instructed by God (or some other universal provider of values) while the values of others can be disregarded as subjective, self-constructed or of lesser value is the height of arrogance.
All we can do is stand before God in a state of humility and trust that He will see our willing heart and will direct us in the way that he has for OUR lives. To assume that we are the possessors of True Wisdom and Absolute Values is to set ourselves up for a fall.
Posts by Timothy Kincaid and the original by Warren Throckmorton are why I tend to stay out of the values end of SSA. I am hopelessly outgunned by two very thoughtful writers.
Sorry, I had to suck up after reading Tim’s last post.
Eddy
I’m wondering–did the sheep studies take parental/sibling/peer pressures into account? How many sheep were monitored? Were the gay sheep monogamous or did they mount other males indiscrimately? What have the studies revealed about the lesbian sheep? Is that 1% also–or is it significantly more or less? There seems to be increased ‘incidental homosexuality’ among men and women who are incarcerated? Were these free roaming sheep or were they captives? (Domesticated vs non-domesticated.)
All I know is this, neither ranchers nor scientists have found a way to interest “gay” male sheep in ewes. I believe wild sheep can be gay as well, but I don’t think widespread studies have been done to determine the percentages. I’ve never run across any.
Dear Timothy Kincaid,
The problem that occurs when a relativist takes on an absolutist posture, so as to demand the superiority of the relativistic position, is that you end up with circular reasoning. Plato demonstrated this thousands of years ago. When this posture is coupled by the accusation of “arrogance” on the person holding on to absolute values, the accusation simply backfires. By taking on the absolutist posture the accusation of the relativist falls on himself. Plato illustrated this problem in a scenario similar to this one:
Relativist: You are a most arrogant person if you imagine you can claim some absolute truth.
Absolutist: Are you absolutely certain of that?
Relativist: I most certainly am.
What you have done in your comment is to also accuse Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama and even Jesus Christ Himself of demonstrating the “height of arrogance” because they are all claiming a view that has greater value than yours. This philosophical issue is far more complicated than you realize.
TImothy Kincaid said:
“In discussing unpleasantness and it’s subjectivity, let us remember that heterosexual sexual interaction is as uncomfortable, disconcerting, and feels just as “wrong” to many (if not most) gay people as would homosexual sexual interaction to most straight people.”
I have found that I managed a little of it by drinking vinegar or Worchestershire sauce afterwards. Now for the weirdness. I engaged a nice Catholic woman in a little sex talk over the Internet a few years ago, thinking I might be able to rekindle some heterosexual feelings. I suddenly found myself drinking more vinegar and Worchestershire sauce, and it took a few days before I understood why I was doing that - even without any physical contact.
Concerning homosexually-oriented male sheep: Their preference is purely this, a ram classified as homosexually-oriented will mount only another ram when offered a preference between a ewe and a ram while in heat. If only a ewe is around while both are the ewe and homosexually-oriented ram are in heat, then about a third or more of the time the homosexually-oriented ram will mount, penetrate and inseminate the ewe. Gay sheep do have offspring.
Concerning the bonobo: I have recently read (I think it was in Science) that certain genes which may have to do with our socialization are more similar in to bonobos and humans than chimpanzees and humans. In other words maybe if we’d think less about and do more of it, the world would be a better place….. sex that is.
José Solano wrote:
“The human being should have greater capacity to resist “instincts” or natural compulsions than sheep or black widow spiders. But one must have a reason to resist.”
And yet that vaunted Aristotlian/Aquinian natural law which the mainline Christian churches and many other Christian sects accept as the bastion of their sexual ethics is based, in part, on the view concerning what is instinctual in the animal kingdom. Furthermore, to be heterosexual is nothing but an instinct. But those thinkers (Aristotle, Aquinas and others) didn’t see what existed in the totality of nature because their own biases wouldn’t let them because they were poor scientists (the very description of a philosopher).
I’m ba-ack…..
But a clear understanding of SSA in sheep might give us a lot of clues for humans.
Are female “ewes” gay as well as the males? If a female “ewe” shows no interest in mating, does that make her gay? What do the females do to show they are gay? =-0 If there are only male gay sheep and not females, what does that tell us?
So, Lynn David, shall we say, “poor philosopher, the very description of a scientist?” It need not be.
Well Ann…. my personal viewpoint is that females, be they sheep or humans or otherwise, do not have the possibility for a genetic-driven instinctual change in sexual orientation. Females who are homosexual are probably due to either to hormonal issues from without (their mother). Other instincts in animals such as the need to procreate (and opportunistic males), may overcome any sexual preference in females. I tend to think that as the number of gay human males are about double that of gay human females is one sign of a genetic cause in males; since females have XX chromosomes and males have XY chromosomes from which gene expression of the X chromosome may occur.
José… what need not be? That philosphers bleat about saying they know truth when they don’t know their head from a hole in the ground?
Lynn David
Those are bisexual sheep, which also make up a significant percent of the sheep population. Another portion of the sheep population have no interest in mating at all.
Depending on where you get your info about 6% of male sheep will only mount other male sheep. They are exclusively gay and do not produce offspring.
Ann
I’m not sure about lesbian sheep.
Asinine statements will simply cut discussion.
Okay, here’s the deal. I just counted approximately 30 comments on the homosexual sheep and those chimps, yet when I raised some pretty straightforward questions about the potential for the human brain to be rewired….and Warren brought questions of a similar nature forward later…the response was minimal. Why, I wondered, would we avoid these questions that we actually have personal experience with (we’ve ALL changed our minds about something in our lifetimes…I hope) to focus our attentions on speculations about homosexuality in sheep? Gee! A rational man might think that people aren’t willing to talk about stuff that hits close to home. A rational man wonders why that is.
I mean no disrespect to anyone by saying this, but this has to be one of the most humorous and surreal discussions I’ve witnessed
Folks, let’s focus. Whatever science learns about the nature of sexual attraction, practical decisions must be made by people in the mean time. My concerns with a naturalistic argument is that what seems natural to one does not seem natural to another. As I understand the natural law argument, truth is based on what seems natural according to the created order. My problem with this is that brain science is demonstrating that sexual attractions are real and measurable neural pathways and that activation of these pathways differ according to stated erotic preferences. Research has not demonstrated a learning pathway from undifferentiated sexual response in early life to sexual preference in adulthood, nor has research demonstrated a convincing pathway from pre-natal factors to adulthood. If anything, the proposed theories account for very little. So saying to a real live adult, “your body tells you who you are” presents the traditionally religious SSA person with serious dissonance which is not completely addressed by saying look to your genitals.
Regarding wiring and re-wiring, we do not know how sexual attraction gets wired so anyone who says they know how to re-wire it would be guessing. Even if we know how concrete sets (to mix metaphors), doesn’t mean we can apply a reverse process to extract the elements and remix it. Studying those who have changed (and those who tried and didn’t) aspects of sexuality would be one way to explore this. I hope to do some of this via brain scan soon.
Apologies for the sheep stuff. Looking back I don’t even know how that got started.
All we, like sheep, have gone astray…
Studying those who have changed (and those who tried and didn’t) aspects of sexuality would be one way to explore this. I hope to do