Comments on: Masculinity and same-sex attraction

By: Katie Cannon

Katie Cannon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:59:48 +0000

In what way is there a “tremendous” difference?
Sure, the Greeks still engaged in procreative sex, but there’s indications that many, just how many is anyone’s guess, that they did so with a sense of reluctance because homosexual sex was considered by large segments of the political order to be the more Beautiful sexual expression, while procreative sex was merely a means to an end, not Beautiful in and of itself.
So, sort of the like the closeted married gay guy today who prefers men, but marries out of a sense of social propriety.
So again, in what way is there a “tremendous” difference?
Katie

By: carole

carole — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:05:02 +0000

testing–can’t seem to post

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:25:02 +0000

Katie Cannon

Bonobos are bisexual throughout their lives.
The Greeks were too, at least the upper male class was.

There is an enormous difference between bisexual behavior and lifetime, preferential homosexuality.

By: Katie Cannon

Katie Cannon — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:54:28 +0000

I’m confusing temporary behavior with lifetime, preferential homosexuality?
Bonobos are bisexual throughout their lives.
The Greeks were too, at least the upper male class was.
You write: “There might be a thousand reasons why that behavior may exist”
What behavior? Temporary or lifetime? Or both?
To keep things simple: What about those Greeks? Genetically gay or bisexual? Or just doing what the Greeks did because of a different concept of beauty, of sexual relations, of social and political order, etc?
Katie

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 23:44:50 +0000

Katie Cannon

What do you make of the fact that a deprived environment can create autistic like behavior?

A deprived “feral” environment is not natural to humans. Since humans didn’t have to commonly face that problem we didn’t evolve coping mechanisms.
—
I think you might have your facts confused on monkeys and the Greeks. You are confusing temporary behavior with lifetime, preferential homosexuality. There might be a thousands reasons why that behavior exists.

By: Katie Cannon

Katie Cannon — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:25:41 +0000

Evan,
While I agree that “science” of sex is looking for mechanistic explanations generally, at least to the extent that mice are mechanistic, if we choose Chimps and Bonobos as our closest animal models, then that strict mechanized view also goes by the wayside.
Drowsap,
What do you make of the very different sexual arrangements of the Bonobos vs. the Chimps?
What do you make of the pervasive homosexual practice of the Ancient Greeks (not to mention other cultures who also practice homosexual acts on a regular basis)?
What do you make of the fact that a deprived environment can create autistic like behavior?
What do you make of the fact that Harlow’s Monkies rarely procreated because their deprived sensual environment impeded their ability to learn HOW to mate?
What do you make of the fact that even second and third generations of Harlow’s Monkies also reproduced at much lower rates, despite the fact they were raised in enriched environments?
And yes, while we may not like it, one of the reasons — and it is just one – the reproduction was reduced was because of increased levels of homosexual behavior. Were the “gay”? No, just not selective, just not in tune with social cues, mating rituals, etc….
Was it not the environment? Could it be a Bug they all caught?
Were the Ancient Greeks also infected with the Homosexual Bug? Most of the upper classes?
Are Bonobos infected with the Homosexual Bug, but Chimps aren’t?
Or is sexual expression in both humans and other smart animals intimately tied to our attachment systems, and thus to our social systems?
Katie

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:54:00 +0000

Evan

We have more technology, but minds are getting closed.

You are so right. In many ways I think there was a lot more common sense floating around 100 or 200 years ago.
BTW, that study is a great find!

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:26:11 +0000

Drowssap,
You know, this idea of sexual orientation being directed in only one, non-reproductive direction, as a result of a brain condition is not so new. A German psychiatrist, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, wrote in 1886:

X., formerly healthy, and of blameless life, was in-
fected with syphilis in 1867. In 1879 paralysis of the
left abducens occurred. Thereafter mental weakness was
noticed, with a change of his disposition and character.
Headache, occasional incoherence of speech, failure of
power of thought and logic, occasional inequality of pupils,
and paresis of the right facial muscles, were observed.
X., aged thirty-seven, showed no trace of lues when
examined. The paralysis of the left abducens was still
present. The left eye was amblyopic. He was mentally
weak. Concerning the trial that was before him, he said
it was nothing but a harmless misunderstanding. Indi-
cations of aphasia. Weakness of memory, particularly
for recent events. Superficial emotional reaction; rapid
exhaustion of memory and ability to speak. Proved:
that the ethical defect and the perverse sexual impulse
are the symptoms of an abnormal condition of brain
induced by lues.
Suspension of criminal proceedings (personal case,
“Jahrbücher für Psychiatrie”).
PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS, translated by F. J. REBMAN, New York, Rebman Company, 141 WEST 36th STREET, p. 468.

The terms and style belong to that century…
You don’t see this kind of approach today, that thinkers on sex & brain took in individual cases. Variations in sexual orientation produced by brain conditions, sexual history, trauma or abuse? No way, it has to be a dignified cause for both, out of anyone’s control.
Kind of makes you wonder. We have more technology, but minds are getting closed.

By: Evan

Evan — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:03:46 +0000

Ann and others
THe type of question you asked can’t be answered right now for one reason: there is no actual model of sexual orientation. There are definitions (APA defines it by attractions, as distinct from behaviours) and there are measurements of products of sexual orientation (brain arousal and physical arousal), but there is no functional model of sexual orientation. If scientists’ perspective on humans as animals is right, then the aim of studying sexual orientation would be to get to a mechanistic explanation of attractions and behaviour, like we see in animals like mice. If that objective remains unmet, then there will be no science of sexual orientation, but only scientific study of sexual orientation (steps towards…).
Answering your question needs solving this problem, but researchers may be able to tell from their experience how most of the time people become aware of their sexual orientation. But they don’t have a model that predicts and explains that in each individual, so what they would casually share would not be science.
I think the question that Warren asked on this topic involves this aspect. Say a number of men claim to have a feeling of diminished masculinity and that they think this has something to do with changes in their attractions. Lab folks could retort: OK, let’s see your brain when you feel that. Ah, wait, we don’t have any way to measure a sense of masculinity (what’s that?), but anyway you probably feel some anxiety. We could measure your sexual arousal, though.
This is where the science on this is right now, in a few words.

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:22:25 +0000

Anything that can cause neurological damage needs to be looked into.
including, IMHO, continuing research on the neurotoxin, Thimerisol