Homosexuality and Biology

[Hoek]

Here's a question that's sure to offend. The issue of effeminate homosexual men and masculine lesbians comes down to this for me: assuming it's not just a stereotype, what possible causes could there be for it? For those of you who have not been in contact with many gay people, you might be quick to dismiss this question as bigotry, but those of us who have notice the pattern. It doesn't mean that all gay men are effeminate or that all lesbians are masculine, but you can't deny that if you made a graph, you would find a statistically significant number that are so. In my mind, the hormone explanation jives very well with the pattern. I think people would be hard pressed to find an environmental reason why gay men tend to exhibit feminine traits.

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's another question I came up with. If effeminate homosexual men are homosexual because of hormone levels and these hormone levels are reflected in their physical appearance, then why are there non-effeminate homosexual men? If homosexuality is purely hormonal, then square-jawed, burly men would not be gay (which is obviously not true). Obviously, homosexuality can't be a result of purely hormonal factors. My question is, is homosexuality not a choice for some men (due to hormones) but a choice for others who don't have the hormonal factors? Are both sides right? Are some men born gay while others choose to be? Wouldn't that throw a monkey wrench in the whole debate?

[Gibsie]

If homosexuality is genetic, then it's rather simple as to how it is passed on.

For centuries homosexuals have been persecuted, and so have taken on partners of the opposite gender, married and had kids to hide their true sexuality. If this is correct, it is quite ironic that it has been the homophobes of society that have helped further the procration of homosexuals throughou the ages

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Fez
Chegitz, that is misleading at best. Face structure does nothing to determine sexuality.

Correlation does not equal causality. Saying that that there is a particular facial structure that exists among gay men does not say that one causes the other. It may not even be genetic. It could be hormonal.

What people are losing focus on is that not only is there most like a complex interplay of genetic, prenatal, environmental, and social factors that cause some people to be gay, it is also likely that there are variations in that interplay. It isn't as if there's an absolute formula, but rather a fuzzy area in which differing amounts of each probable cause create similar results.

DT, among men, I've never heard of anyone being gay by choice. Under certain situations, straight men may choose to engage in homsexual activity, but that doesn't make them gay. Those situations are generally either about power (maleon male rape) or isolation from women (sailors, 19th Cent. coyboys, etc).

Among women, however, there does seem to be some choice. One lesbian I knew switched to woman after having been raped. She simply couldn't stand the thought of sleeping with men after that. I don't think she was terribly happy with her choice, as her relationships never lasted. Most likely this has to do with most people actually being bisexual, and there being less of an onus on women being lesbians than upon men, whereas most bisexual men probably won't act upon their feelings.

[mindseye]

Look, so far I have not seen one sound argument on behalf of homosexuality being GENETIC

Try the first page again. I pointed out that groups with extra non-breeding adults who could contribute to food-gathering, defense, child-rearing, etc might have an evolutionary advantage (e.g. higher survival rate of children). This is certainly an evolutionary advantage for some other animals (termites, ants, bees).

[mindseye]

the ancient Greeks (...) had a prohibition against homosexuality also. While it was true that men seduced teen boys, there were rules. First, the teen was not supposed to want to be seduced. Second, sexual intercorse didn't involved actual penetration, but was done by thrusting the penis through the thighs. Anal sex was prohibited, (...)

Che, you have written many spot-on arguments in this thread, but on this I wonder if you are 100% correct.

First, the teen may have ideally been the disinterested object of pursuit, but that does not mean that he was really disinterested or hat the seduction was against his wishes. Having a realtionship with an older man was considerd highly desirable. Here's a nice summary I came across:

The Greek male was expected not only to marry and raise children, but also to be available for friendship and love with worthy youths, not to the exclusion of marriage but as its necessary complement. Thus his destined path through the garden of love would begin some time in adolescence when he was courted by many men and would choose one to be his lover. It would then continue in early adulthood with his own courting and winning the love of a deserving youth, and then it would expand to include taking a wife and having children of his own. (Of course there were countless variations on this theme, some noble and others sordid, just as it is with us today in our love life.) That a man should be attracted both to lovely women and to beardless youths was seen as natural and normal. It was also accepted that some men would lean more towards one, and some towards the other. However, young males were considered the fair sex par excellence

Second, regarding intercrural (inter-thigh) intercourse, this may have been the rule, but I'm not sure it was necessarily the practice. I'm sure I've seen depictions of male-male sex from Greek pottery depicting scenes that could not possibly have been intercrural screwing (e.g. man sitting, boy on top straddling). Also I have seen depictions of anal sex with women.

[mindseye]

That's not much of an argument, MrFun. I'm sorry this contradicts liberal teaching that you can't tell a gay person by looking at them, but in some cases you can.

I agree with Che. From my experience, there are certain "looks" for both men and women that are strongly (almost exclusively) associated with gay people. This phenomenon crosses race lines. Since (1) only a minority of gay people have this look, and (2) those who do are almost always gay, I'd say this is more evidence to suggest a multiple-cause theory. Perhaps these gay folks are gay for a stongly biological reason (genetic, hormonal), while others arrive at homosexuality from a different cause.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If sexual preference is caused by hormone levels in the body, then it is completely plausible that you could recognize some people as gay by their facial structure. Facial structure is largely determined by hormones; a man with low levels of testosterone will have a smaller chin and higher cheekbones than a man with higher testosterone levels. If a low testosterone level is one of the causes of homosexuality (which no one knows for sure), then Che's belief that you can tell some men are gay just by the way they look is certainly possible. I wouldn't be so quick to discount this idea.

I do not rely on physical appearance to determine if a man is gay, or if a woman is a lesbian -- I observe their behavior, and who they are with at the time.

Consider all the gay men who are butch, and have beards.
Consider all the gay men who are anything but slim in weight.
Consider all the lesbians who are feminine, and dress in feminine ways.
And so on, and so on.

There are TOO MANY exceptions to Chegitz's argument, which is why I see it as seriously flawed.

[mindseye]

There are TOO MANY exceptions to Chegitz's argument, which is why I see it as seriously flawed.

Unless, as Che suggested, there is more than one path to homosexuality - in which case his argument is perfectly plausible.

I'm surprised you have not noticed this effect, I thought most gays simply took it for granted. Of course, there are many, many gay people (the majority, in fact) who don't have "the look", however of those who do, they are almost always gay. The correlation strikes me as far too strong to be coincidence.

[chequita guevara]

The smartass in me wants to say that Iowa probably doesn't have a large enough gay population concentrated in one place for MrFun to have noticed.

mindseye, since neither of us were there in ancient Greece, I doubt we'll really know. I've seen both arguments. I'm inclined to believe what I wrote in this thread largely only because it seems as if almost every society has had a prohibition against homosexuality of some sort. On the other hand, throughout much of the world, at one time or another, there does seem to have been an exception made for older males wanting younger males. (It could, however, be that someone read Roman views on male sexuality backwards onto the Greeks.)

[Ramo]

[quote]There are TOO MANY exceptions to Chegitz's argument, which is why I see it as seriously flawed.[/quo]

I agree with che and mindseye that there are some facial features that are much more prominent among gays than straights. Of course, I probably don't know as many gay people as you do...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The smartass in me wants to say that Iowa probably doesn't have a large enough gay population concentrated in one place for MrFun to have noticed.

[mindseye]

The smartass in me wants to say that Iowa probably doesn't have a large enough gay population concentrated in one place for MrFun to have noticed.

That won't wash because I'm also from Iowa!

[Starchild]

Iowa : Home of corn and queens.

[mindseye]

Speaking of corny queens ... what's your opinon, Starchild?