Weirdelves wrote:On an unrelated note, I really wanted to make a thread a while back wondering just why so many Tadpoles were gay, but I couldn't think of a way to phrase the topic. It seems about 2/3 of the guys on here are gay which is pretty surprising.
Andrew wrote:Well, I'm much more skeptical of environmental explanations than physiological ones although of course I have no idea either way. Perhaps universalising whatever narrow definition of homosexuality we have is a bad thing, but I don't think that theorising about homosexuality in the broadest sense (i.e. trying the phenomenon of male-male attraction through biology) is setting anybody back. I don't think cultural sexual categories really say anything about gay population levels either - it probably says more about what individuals held cultural influence. Pederastic relationships don't require attraction necessarily, and being molested by a pederast doesn't have to be particularly traumatising if it's a social convention and you're lauded for it. Similarly, if there's not even a category for it, it's probably just so impossible to openly enact that it cannot be categorised - thinking of gay women in UAE.
Of course, there's still the argument that everybody has the potential for homosexual or heterosexual attraction, and it's a sign of our particular place and period that there is such a strong divide between the two. It's very difficult to have any sexual fluidity and be fully accepted by mainstream society, and this is probably a part of what motivates scientists to look for a 'gay gene' in the first place.
Gerritsón wrote:By the way, recently a neuroscientist came to Amsterdam to talk about many aspects of the brain, including sexual orientation. He said that sexual orientation all happens in the womb, in 2 stages. According to him:
-First there is the sexual orientation of your body: if you will be a boy or a girl. Boys will get a penis, girls a vagina.
-Then, in the second half of pregnancy, there is the sexual orientation of your brain. Normally the presence of testosterone will make the boys heterosexual, and the absence of testosterone will make girls heterosexual. However, if there is an absence of testosterone in the second half of pregnancy while having a boy, his brain will start to resemble a girls brain in many ways. This may lead to being homosexual, or even transexual. The opposite would apply for girls: presence of testosterone in the second half of pregnancy would give her brain masculine aspects.
milkisobel wrote:i didn't like to put the greek and te christians into the debate as it's clearly social behavior. were they gay or act like cos of social norm? as i don't think contrary to the islamist speech that there is less gay men in muslim country contrary to occidental. except you understand the main message as it's difficult to explain
Andrew wrote:I do agree! fully! I was just musing disorganised-ly! In fact I was just discussing with the boyf yesterday about how attempts at explanations, or even the act of thinking a physological explanation is necessary, can be much more damaging than they are scientifically meritable! Scientists definitely do need to look beyond cultural norms if they're going to come up with anything valid. It doesn't necessarily mean that sexuality is always fluid, though, but of course we don't know either way!
I still don't think that attraction is necessary in order to enact cultural norms, but then 'attraction' is very hard to define anyway. If there's going to be any physiological theorising, though, that should be the key!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests