Gene makes fruit flies bisexual: study

[K-Mac]

A week or so ago in chat, we were discussing homosexuality, so when I saw this article today, I thought some of you may find it interesting.

[LiberTodd]

I guess that's why they're called fruit flies!

*rimshot*

[Moebius]

That is pretty interesting. My problem with making homosexuality a morality issue has always been the possibility that it might have biological roots. It would sort of nullify the whole "the nature of masculinity is such and femininity is such and if you act otherwise you are damaging yourself" argument.

Of course this study only applies to fruit flies so its implication on human beings is unclear. The article does indicate however that the fruit flies are bisexual and not strictly homosexual. It also mentioned that the condition can be controlled with drugs. Which kind of raises the theoretical question of whether homosexuality in humans should be treated (like a disease) if such treatments were possible. Another question -assuming there is a biological pre-disposition toward homosexuality- is whether it is simply a defect, or whether it serves some sort of function in the greater evolutionary scheme.

[LiberTodd]

If people are happy being gay then why would anyone want to "cure" them?

Maybe they should experiment with genes that make fruit flies more open-minded and accepting of alternative lifestyles.

[K-Mac]

If people are happy being gay then why would anyone want to "cure" them?

Not all are and perhaps they would appreciate an option? Many of the gay people I know went through absolute hell growing up. Maybe they would have chosen not to had there been a choice. I don't know, but I certainly don't think it hurts to explore all options.

[~Sophia~]

It is unlikely that this finding is going to be applicable to humans. Insect behavior is controlled by chemicals. This mutation causes flies to over-react to phermones produced by other flies and as a result not being able to tell whether other flies are male or female.

Edited December 10, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[LaszloWalrus]

I'm skeptical of the view that homosexuality is caused by chemicals. Why were so many of the ancient Greeks gay or bisexual?

[exaltron]

It is unlikely that this finding is going to be applicable to humans. Insect behavior is controlled by chemicals. This mutation causes flies to over-react to phermones produced by other flies and as a result not being able to tell whether other flies are male or female.

That's weird, I always wondered why I end up sleeping with guys whenever my nose was stuffed up.

*air ball*

[K-Mac]

I'm skeptical of the view that homosexuality is caused by chemicals. Why were so many of the ancient Greeks gay or bisexual?

Chemicals cause our bodies to do all sorts of things. (We're not talking about being exposed to man-made chemicals, but rather the chemicals our bodies produce naturally and the Greeks probably had those too.) Here, they seem to be using pheromones.

[Qwertz]

I'm skeptical of the view that homosexuality is caused by chemicals. Why were so many of the ancient Greeks gay or bisexual?

This is an excellent example of the confusion caused by the terminology.

So many of the ancient Greeks were 'gay' (engaged in homosexual behavior) because they had a philosophy that encouraged it over heterosexual behavior (misogyny, youth-worship). If one's philosophy says homosexual sex is a good thing, worthy of pursuit, one does not require any genetic predisposition to homosexual behavior in order to engage in homosexual behavior. The Greeks thought gay sex was cool, so they chose to have a lot of it.

It doesn't matter if there is a genetic component that causes a predisposition to a certain behavior. It doesn't affect our ability to morally judge the behavior. For example, the existence of a genetic factor causing a predisposition to alcoholism would not affect our ability to morally judge alcoholic behavior. "My genes made me do it" isn't an excuse. If the behavior is itself immoral, it doesn't matter if there is a genetic component. Immoral behavior is immoral behavior. Irrational animals are compelled to particular behaviors by their environment and genes. Men are not. The existence of a genetic predisposition to homosexual behavior does not compel a man to have sex with other men. The biological question is purely of scientific interest, not philosophical.

The confusion arises out of the use of one word ('gay') to refer to both the behavior and the predisposition.

As I have said elsewhere on this forum, I remain unconvinced that homosexual behavior is in itself always immoral.

~Q

[LiberTodd]

I'm surprised any Objectivists have qualms about homosexuality at all. I mean, it doesn't hurt you in any way so why would you care what they do with their lives? Besides, the homosexual community has created a whole new market. Think of all the money designers have made by making clothes targeted at homosexuals. Think of all the money the producers of that queer eye show made.

[Moebius]

I'm surprised any Objectivists have qualms about homosexuality at all. I mean, it doesn't hurt you in any way so why would you care what they do with their lives?

I'm guessing because Ayn Rand said that it was immoral. But then she came from a different time and different social background.

[Thales]

Who is the Gene guy and why is he making gay flies buy sexual?

Just curious.

[Inspector]

I'm surprised any Objectivists have qualms about homosexuality at all. I mean, it doesn't hurt you in any way so why would you care what they do with their lives?

I'm not commenting on homosexuality here, but you seem to be mistaking Objectivism with Libertarianism. The Objectivist ethics are based on rational self-interest rooted in the nature of man - not on the dictum of "everything that doesn't hurt other people is okay."

[exaltron]

I'm not commenting on homosexuality here, but you seem to be mistaking Objectivism with Libertarianism. The Objectivist ethics are based on rational self-interest rooted in the nature of man - not on the dictum of "everything that doesn't hurt other people is okay."

Agree. I would say Rand called homosexuality immoral because she believed that it was harmful to the practitioner, which is why she always stated emphatically that like other immoral acts- say for example worshiping some imaginary deity- homosexuality shouldn't be prohibited.

The question is, is it harmful to anyone, or in any way incompatible with man's nature? I honestly don't think that being homosexual necessarily represents any obstacle to rational self-interest and happiness. But that's probably a question for the homosexuality thread..

[progressiveman1]

The question is, is it harmful to anyone, or in any way incompatible with man's nature?

Ayn Rand defined 'romantic love' in The Objectivist recently: "Romantic love is an emotion possible only to the man(or woman) of unbreached self-esteem:it is his response to his own highest values in the person of another- an integrated response of mind and body, of love and sexual desire."

Homosexuality doesn't contradict that.

[aequalsa]

Homosexuality doesn't contradict that.

This is a bit of conjecture...but I think Rand's response to homosexuality(I think she called it "disgusting" in a Q&A) Makes sense if you keep in mind her view of masculinity. The masculine as the hero, the dominant character in a romantic story or romance, being subjugated would likely have the same impact on her emotionally that Dominique experienced with regard to Roark and every other "good thing" she came across. I gather that she really liked men and was probably disappointed in every way they did not live up to that role. Not just politically or ethically. Let's face it, when you picture a hero in your mind, a dude bent over a couch getting hammered doesn't come to mind.

I believe that it simply did not fit inside the context of her romantic view of life.

[progressiveman1]

Let's face it, when you picture a hero in your mind, a dude bent over a couch getting hammered doesn't come to mind.

Maybe a gay guy does picture his hero like that. It seems odd to me and you because that's not our preference.

I think the most important thing is that the two people involved in a romantic relationship are in love with each other.The exact type of person a man has a desire to sleep with can vary, whether it is a blonde, brunette, short hair, long hair, or a man or woman.

[volco]

I believe Peikoff re-defined the issue as: it is inmoral for a shtraight man to have gay sex and vice-versa. Similarly Ayn Rand opposed gay rights movements for the privileges involved but she didn't actually condemned homosexuality. She was asked, and answered disgusting, but later on she said further study was needed.

PErhaps a dude bent over a couch isn't my picture of a hero either. But what about heroines, like Dagny Taggart or Ayn Rand. I think both of them have been bent over in passivity more than once.

What if there's both masculinity and femminity in the same person and as an endogenous configuration?

Might heterosexuality be overrated because of centuries of biological neccesity?

You see I often see objectivism as a queer philosophy. It is not altruistic nor it is cynical. It isn't mind-centered but it's not materialist either. I can see some parallels.

I don't see gay men as emmasculated men. Ayn Rand fought against emmasculation (see Camille Paglia) not against femminity. You can say Jimmy Taggart was a whimp or a fag but not a homosexual.

Edited December 11, 2007 by volco

[aequalsa]

Maybe a gay guy does picture his hero like that. It seems odd to me and you because that's not our preference.

I think the most important thing is that the two people involved in a romantic relationship are in love with each other.The exact type of person a man has a desire to sleep with can vary, whether it is a blonde, brunette, short hair, long hair, or a man or woman.

His hero? Come on. It may be sexually appealing to some, but hero in the romantic realism, form following function, man as the conqueror of his environment, view? No way. Not even for a gay guy.

There may be other things at work in any relationship. Obviously people have differing preferences. I am not arguing against homosexuality or alternatives to anything. Just trying to explain why I think Rand herself was put off by the idea. To her, it was probably the equivalent of a mustache on the mona lisa. It did not fit with how she liked to think of men, so she found it "disgusting."

PErhaps a dude bent over a couch isn't my picture of a hero either. But what about heroines, like Dagny Taggart or Ayn Rand. I think both of them have been bent over in passivity more than once.

Heroines are not female versions of heroes. They're reciprocals. In this context, the "bottom" is obviously a heroine of sorts. Likes to look up to and be dominated by men. But, in that he is technically a man, he does not completely fit the picture in the literature sense of the word. For a woman who devoted her life to this romantic view of life, I imagine it would be troubling every time someone doesn't live up to your image of what they "could and ought to be."

I don't see gay men as emmasculated men.

I am having trouble imagining any picture more emasculating then being the bottom in a gay relationship. I realize they may be masculine in other capacities, but being the woman in the sexual act pretty much encapsulates the concept of emasculation.

[volco]

His hero? Come on. It may be sexually appealing to some, but hero in the romantic realism, form following function, man as the conqueror of his environment, view? No way. Not even for a gay guy.

There may be other things at work in any relationship. Obviously people have differing preferences. I am not arguing against homosexuality or alternatives to anything. Just trying to explain why I think Rand herself was put off by the idea. To her, it was probably the equivalent of a mustache on the mona lisa. It did not fit with how she liked to think of men, so she found it "disgusting."

Heroines are not female versions of heroes. They're reciprocals. In this context, the "bottom" is obviously a heroine of sorts. Likes to look up to and be dominated by men. But, in that he is technically a man, he does not completely fit the picture in the literature sense of the word. For a woman who devoted her life to this romantic view of life, I imagine it would be troubling every time someone doesn't live up to your image of what they "could and ought to be."

I am having trouble imagining any picture more emasculating then being the bottom in a gay relationship. I realize they may be masculine in other capacities, but being the woman in the sexual act pretty much encapsulates the concept of emasculation.

Sure, for an otherwise straigh man, misled, with terrible premises, to be the bottom of in a gay relationship is surely emmasculating. But if one accepts the premise that homosexuality is not a choice then there's no masculinity to begin with.

I know this happens with the body (woman born with very large clitorix' or man born with very small penises) in like 1 or 2 % of the population that get operations soon after being born. It would be reasonable to think it may happen with the brain as well.

[aequalsa]

Sure, for an otherwise straigh man, misled, with terrible premises, to be the bottom of in a gay relationship is surely emmasculating. But if one accepts the premise that homosexuality is not a choice then there's no masculinity to begin with.

I know this happens with the body (woman born with very large clitorix' or man born with very small penises) in like 1 or 2 % of the population that get operations soon after being born. It would be reasonable to think it may happen with the brain as well.

Oh boy...here we go...what "terrible premises" of sexuality in the context of romantic fiction are my notions about Ayn Rand's psychology based on?

And before we go into very well charted territory, I do not believe that definitions are defined by exceptions to the rule. I can induce that "men" have two legs, as a rule, even though men with one or no legs can be found.

[aequalsa]

But if one accepts the premise that homosexuality is not a choice then there's no masculinity to begin with.

I understand and accept the likelihood that homosexuality is the result of children born to mothers uder stress during pregnancy that increases the production of....etc.

Again, the exceptions don't make the rule. The concept of masculinity serves a purpose. It represents a set of ideas. Homosexuals existence does not affect the concept one way or another. If you wish to not believe that the idea exists, then we cannot discuss it much further.

[volco]

no, no, I mean the premise that homosexuality is a naturally occuring configuration (even if a disease).

If the individual is born with a masculine mind and a female body, it would be emmasculating for -her- to be passive.

I think the issue is that mind and body are not appear compatible or well integrated in the homosexual. Thisis both glorified -yet covered- and demonized by religion (see gay priests and gay persecutions). In this sense I guess it poses a problem to Objectivism and its ambition to fully integrate mind and body.

[aequalsa]

no, no, I mean the premise that homosexuality is a naturally occuring configuration (even if a disease).

If the individual is born with a masculine mind and a female body, it would be emmasculating for -her- to be passive.

I think the issue is that mind and body are not appear compatible or well integrated in the homosexual. Thisis both glorified -yet covered- and demonized by religion (see gay priests and gay persecutions). In this sense I guess it poses a problem to Objectivism and its ambition to fully integrate mind and body.

I see. If someone has a female brain, then I agree that they could not be emasculated. By definition, really. Biology is messy. When subdividing species, etc. it is very easy to get into quagmires. Finding some evolutionary "inbetween" doesn't mean that the whole process of categorizing is folly. Just complex. Same with philosophy. It is important to realize that objectivism integrating mind and body does not need to be all encompassing in a rationalistic way. These concepts are not absolute commandments and apply to individuals in somewhat different ways. It is for them to figure out their own particulars based on the general principles that objectivism provides.