Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality

[unskinned]

I'm curious about whether anyone can explain how, when, and why they decided to be heterosexual. I know I didn't make a volitional choice; I just am.

There is a lot of evidence that children become sexual because of knowledge and discovery, well before puberty. I know you already get this but following from it, here are some examples of how someone could choose heterosexuality over a period of years:

I like other human beings (age4)-->I'm a male (age 5)-->I would like to be an "adult" (age 6)-->I am important and I value my own pleasure(age 7)-->Sex causes me pleasure (age 9)-->Sex can be had with other human beings/Men have sex with women culturally (age 9, later)-->Sex is physiologically heterosexual (sex education)-->Women get pregnant after sex and that is how I could reproduce, if I wanted to, it's exciting and "adult" (sex ed)--> I like my friend susy and enjoy doing fun things with her--> Feces repulses me, I hate anal thermometers,etc

-->And you smoosh that all together and you're a heterosexual

And appreciation for the female body has to do with it's difference from men, size, shape, symmetry, and also possibly radiates outward from her genitalia and the understanding of pleasure, ownership, and the act itself.

That is a thought train I would induce if I made some biological discovery that lead me in that general direction. In other words, the inconcievablility of chosen sexuality cannot be claimed here. It is concievable.

[RationalBiker]

The problem is that Objectivism seems to deny any possibility of genetic susceptibility for homosexuality or any other value-related issue.

Can you see a possible distinction between what Ayn Rand said and what Objectivism "says"? True, she developed the philosophy, but that doesn't mean that everything she said was part of Objectivism.

VES

[RationalBiker]

As for proof that sexual orientation exists, it seems pretty obvious by introspection.

I think the argument here may be semantic. While sexual preference may be obvious upon introspection, orientation may not be. Preference suggests choice, orientation suggests predisposition.

VES

[JRoberts]

Q: This questioner says she read somewhere that you consider all forms of homosexuality immoral. If this is so, why?

A: Because it involves psychological flaws, corruptions, errors, or unfortunate premises, but there is a psychological immorality at the root of homosexuality. Therefore I regard it as immoral. But I do not believe that the government has the right to prohibit it. It is the privilege of any individual to use his sex life in whichever way he wants it. That's his legal right, provided he is not forcing it on anyone. And therefore the idea that it's proper among consenting adults is the proper formulation legally. Morally it is immoral, and more than that, if you want my really sincere opinion, it is disgusting.

Ayn Rand, "The Moratorium on Brains -- Q&A," lecture session taped at the Ford Hall Forum, 1971.

source: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html#Q5.2.6

However, this source also quotes Harry Binswanger:

"I asked her privately (circa 1980) specifically whether she thought it was immoral. She said that we didn't know enough about the development of homosexuality in a person's psychology to say that it would have to involve immorality."

That seems much more rational, yet many Objectivists seem to hold the former view, whether sincerely or just because that's what they think AR thought.

As for proof that sexual orientation exists, it seems pretty obvious by introspection.

I would like to thank you Godless Capitalist for providing this information.

Now as to my other question-you speak of introspection. When I look inside myself-I see my sexual IDENTITY. I see that I am a dominant figure-a conqueror-who seeks a submissive-or a conquered. When I observe my biology, I see that I have testosterone, that adds to my 'manliness'. Thus, 'manly' seeks 'womanly', testosterone seeks estrogen, conqueror seeks conquered.

While I see that for the most part this relates to male and female, I fail to understand why a male who, introspectively, sees himself as "conqueror" could not desire a male who, introspectively, sees himself as "conquered".

[AMERICONORMAN]

There is a lot of evidence that children become sexual because of knowledge and discovery, well before puberty.  I know you already get this but following from it, here are some examples of how someone could choose heterosexuality over a period of years:

I like other human beings (age4)-->I'm a male (age 5)-->I would like to be an "adult" (age 6)-->I am important and I value my own pleasure(age 7)-->Sex causes me pleasure (age 9)-->Sex can be had with other human beings/Men have sex with women culturally (age 9, later)-->Sex is physiologically heterosexual (sex education)-->Women get pregnant after sex and that is how I could reproduce, if I wanted to, it's exciting and "adult" (sex ed)-->  I like my friend susy and enjoy doing fun things with her-->  Feces repulses me, I hate anal thermometers,etc

-->And you smoosh that all together and you're a heterosexual

And appreciation for the female body has to do with it's difference from men, size, shape, symmetry, and also possibly radiates outward from her genitalia and the understanding of pleasure, ownership, and the act itself.

That is a thought train I would induce if I made some biological discovery that lead me in that general direction.  In other words, the inconcievablility of chosen sexuality cannot be claimed here.  It is concievable.

First let me say that I believe that heterosexuality is the natural. I believe that for most homosexuals, the cause is psychological. And in theory, with the help of a good psycho-therapist one can pin-point the event and context where one as a child made that subconscious choice.

However, I have trouble with your outline of childhood sexual development. First, to be a homosexual, i.e., have sex, one doesn't have to get anywhere near to feces. Oral sex is enough to make one homosexual. Two adolescents or inexperienced adults--males--can conceivably go for years with being satified with oral sex and kissing. And even when anal sex is involved, interacting with feces can be avoided. Check out some pornography for proof.

My problem is that you made a huge jump. What your boy feels for Susy he can conceivably feel for another boy. For your boy the only thing that makes him homosexual is that he doesn't like feces. You missed the stage where he discovers that he enjoys Enrique's penis, he likes the taste of semen, and the feeling of it in his throat.

I assume you don't have a problem with a woman swallowing her lover? The point is that two adolescent boys or two young adult males, in self-discovery, if they allow themselves to, will certainly feel great pleasure, even without getting to the anal sex stage but even that is enjoyable.

Excuse me for being crude for I am certainly not a prude.

Americo.

[Godless Capitalist]

I don't see myself as a conqueror or my wife as conquered. I guess I can see how some people can look at it that way, but I don't see how it could be fundamental to all romantic relationships.

Can you see a possible distinction between what Ayn Rand said and what Objectivism "says"?  True, she developed the philosophy, but that doesn't mean that everything she said was part of Objectivism.

VES

Of course; I'm well aware of that. I think its pretty clear that Ayn Rand's views on homosexuality are not formally part of Objectivism. But her views of human nature are, and those views seem to preclude the idea that anything as complex as sexual orientation could be nonvolitional. And by "orientation" I just mean whether you attracted to the same or the opposite sex, regardless of the reason.

[Godless Capitalist]

I like other human beings (age4)-->I'm a male (age 5)-->I would like to be an "adult" (age 6)-->I am important and I value my own pleasure(age 7)-->Sex causes me pleasure (age 9)-->Sex can be had with other human beings/Men have sex with women culturally (age 9, later)-->Sex is physiologically heterosexual (sex education)-->Women get pregnant after sex and that is how I could reproduce, if I wanted to, it's exciting and "adult" (sex ed)-->  I like my friend susy and enjoy doing fun things with her-->  Feces repulses me, I hate anal thermometers,etc

-->And you smoosh that all together and you're a heterosexual

Interesting ... Just a few possible weak points:

"Men have sex with women culturally" Mostly, but sometimes they have sex with other men.

"Sex is physiologically heterosexual (sex education)" In modern sex ed kids often learn that homosexual sex is also physiologically possible.

"Women get pregnant after sex and that is how I could reproduce, if I wanted to, it's exciting and "adult" (sex ed)" Sex ed is more about how to avoid pregnancy.

"I like my friend susy and enjoy doing fun things with her" But why? Maybe your friend Bruce would be fun too.

But in any case I don't see any of this as volitional; where is the free and rational choice?

[unskinned]

I've made the case that it could concievably be many little choices, therefore still up to choice/psychological premisses. Not that it is one big choice.

Also, "Sex is physiologically heterosexual" because the woman and man are specifically and sexually designed to have sex with each other. They are both feeling similar sensations at the same time. I don't need to be too explicit to assert that traditional homosexual sex consitantly involves blood and the foulest substance on earth, feces. It is not physiologically correct. If you meant that it is technically possible to have sex with a man, very true. True of animals and trees as well. The adjective "physiological" can awarded to heterosexual sex only, though, for the reasons I have just given. And I would add the adjective "moral" can be attatched to homosexual sex where it cannot with animals and trees, just to clarify out of respect.

"I like Susie and enjoy spending time with her," of course Bruce too. Point taken. This was really the conclusion. With all the previous train of thought I think Bruce is out of the picture, however.

Sex ed is more about how to avoid pregnancy

Ha ha. My point is that a part of the automoatic sexual attraction we have is from the value judgement of the ability to have children with someone, learned.

[y_feldblum]

Ayn Rand considered homosexuality to be immoral and a result of faulty premises. She must therefore have considered it to something within the realm of volitional choice. This is consistent with her view that man is born as a conceptual blank slate and must develop his values rather than having them come automatically as they do with animals.

Now if homosexuality is even influenced by genetics, then it is not volitional and Ayn Rand was mistaken. But that calls into question the whole blank slate idea. It really makes no sense to me that a chimpanzee supposedly has no volition whatsoever, yet we with only 3% difference in our genes have 100% volition.

Many things influence a person's decisions. But the cause of a person's actions is that person himself. Both nature and nurture influence a person as he grows up; but again, by the law of causality and the axiom of volition, a person's choices are his choices.

[Godless Capitalist]

I've made the case that it could concievably be many little choices, therefore still up to choice/psychological premisses.  Not that it is one big choice.

Fair enough. y_feldblum, I see your point too.

The fact remains, though, that most gay people have upbringings exactly the same as everyone else, yet somehow they become gay. For example, one guy I know was the 3rd of 5 brothers from a small Catholic familiy in northern Ontario. He was not raised any differently than his brothers, yet they are all straight and he is gay. It's very hard to explain using purely psychological mechanisms.

There are also of course the studies that show that sexual orientation in many mammals can be affected by exposure to hormones during fetal development. You can't just brush that off by saying that animals are not volitional and humans are; the human brain is not that different from, for example, chimpanzees.

[jfortun]

Also, "Sex is physiologically heterosexual" because the woman and man are specifically and sexually designed to have sex with each other.  They are both feeling similar sensations at the same time.  I don't need to be too explicit to assert that traditional homosexual sex consitantly involves blood and the foulest substance on earth, feces.  It is not physiologically correct.  If you meant that it is technically possible to have sex with a man, very true. 

This is just ignorant. Note I didn't say "stupid", I said ignorant.

First, men and women do not feel similar sensations at the same time. Most sexually experienced people know that while penetration and a bit of friction is enough to bring a man to climax it frequently is not enough to do the same for a woman. There is even a large time lag, I believe the average for the man is 8 minutes while for a woman it is over 20 minutes. I am not saying that men and women are incompatible, but that the sexual experience is not the same. How many women have lived their entire lives without achieving an orgasm because their man believed the woman was experiencing the same kind of pleasure?

Second, homosexual sex does not consistantly involve blood or feces. Many gay men do not engage in anal sex. For those that do, blood and feces need not ever be involved. I won't go into details here, but do just a little bit of reading on anal sex and you will find it can be very safe, very clean and very enjoyable without all that much effort. Besides which, many straight couples engage in anal sex or play as well. That area has an incredible concentration of nerve endings, so from a physiological perspective it makes for a very good erogenous zone.

From an evolutionary perspective (i.e. the continuation of the species) sex between 2 men or 2 women may not make much sense, but from a physiological and sexual perspective- that is, the ability to give and recieve pleasure- all our bodies are pretty well suited to the job regardless of gender if you have the right partner.

[y_feldblum]

Godless, there are also people who grew up in very similar conditions who went on into very different careers, or who achieved very different levels of success, or who moved to opposite sides of the globe, or who adopted opposite codes of morality.

Indeed, there are people who grew up similarly but adopted different sexual preferences.

People can control the values they adopt, volitionally. Animals cannot. Sexual preferences among people are certainly subject to volition, while those among animals may be deterministic. The reason: the way influences affect volitional consciousness is different from the way influences affect nonvolitional consciousness.

[unskinned]

This is just ignorant. Note I didn't say "stupid", I said ignorant.

I appreciate your good nature. However, my comment is not ignorant as I was not claiming that anal sex is not any of the following things: moral, highly pleasurable, possible, one big choice

For the reasons previously stated anal sex may be psychologically, pleasurably, morally correct. It is not physiological sex, however. Yes, you can have anal sex without pain, blood, maybe even without feces, just as you can have plantsex without splinters. I would bet that the effort involved in preventing both categories of discomfort is the same however. The woman does not have to have a colonic (or whatever) to have carefree sex.

I am aware that women and men are different, and that many women need a lot of time to orgasm, and have a lot of difficulty with this. I have encountered noone claiming that this can be considered the norm for sex or that that is not largely psychological in nature. Most importantly, the man can often wait or go again. Heterosexual sex is more simultaneous and engages both genetalia at the same time, ie physiological.

I assume you don't have a problem with a woman swallowing her lover?

I'm not sure I have a moral problem with any human sex discussed on these couple of pages . As for oral sex, I think that it is usually explicitly non-simultaneous. That being the case it is not physiological, irrespective of the sexuality of the partners. I'm not saying it is wrong, just not physiological from the perspective of a hypothetical child choosing based on mutual pleasure alone. But obviously there is such a thing as mutual oral sex. Therefore I could be wrong in asserting that there is some rational factor which makes this naturally unappealing.

[jfortun]

so oral sex is not "physiological" either? what is the purpose of your point about whether or not sex is physiologically correct? What is important about it being "simulataneous"?

regarding anal sex, the lower colon is pretty clean until just the moment before it evacuates. Colonics are not really necessary unless you have really bad timing.

As for male/female sex, many women cannot even orgasm just with vaginal penetration- that is a physiological fact- not a psychological one. It is quite normal and is a result of the female anatomy.

[Free Capitalist]

Guys, I think the issue here is of developmental nature. Sure men and women can engage in sexual actitivies of all sorts, once they've developed into men and women. When you have a boy, and you tell him that you have sex with your girlfriend by tying her into a knot and shocking various parts of her genitalia with electric signals (ok very weird but appropriate example), he will not understand. But if you tell a grown man that you do this he will.

Similarly, surely men and women can engage in anal sex, and then practice other deviations from the vanilla intercourse, but that's once they've developed their individual sexual identities. That's a critical point.

JRoberts, a 'conqueror' man can have sex with a 'conquered' man. But you have to admit that a 'conquered' man has a serious debilitation in his psychology (unless it's that once-every-thousand years that a genetic homosexuality occurs). If this is the case, then the 'conqueror' man is having his most intimate moments with another person whom he knows to be highly unhappy, and moreover that his sex with that person will make them even worse; gay sex, receiving, for a heterosexual man is a highly traumatic experience. Why do you think people are afraid of hard-time prisons. It's not the food or bad clothing, believe me.

So your 'conqueror' man, if he's borderline retarded and doesn't understand anything, can have sex with a 'conquered' man, and be perfectly fine. But any other kind of heterosexual man will feel terrible about the situation - he will both feel the inappropriateness of conquering someone who ought not be conquered (aking to having sex with a sheep...), and tremendous pity for the man with so many problems. So he will know all this, and will not be able to go through with the act. His body won't let him.

[JRoberts]

JRoberts, a 'conqueror' man can have sex with a 'conquered' man. But you have to admit that a 'conquered' man has a serious debilitation in his psychology

I can not admit something that I don't believe in. While I will say that most homosexual males I know in today's society are what you are describing-unhealthy individuals-I will not say that in a correct romantic relationship, a homosexual male would be this way. To state that a healthy male "conqueror" would desire an unhealthy male "conquered" is to deny the former male his health. In a healthy romance, both people would be healthy.

(unless it's that once-every-thousand years that a genetic homosexuality occurs).

It is my belief that physiological homosexuality also has to do with the balance of hormones within the body. There is evidence to indicate this. I am not denying genetics, but am rather saying that a multitude of physiological things could contribute.

gay sex, receiving, for a heterosexual man is a highly traumatic experience.

It would be traumatic for a "conqueror" to be conquered. This seems natural. However, a healthy "conqueror" would have no desire to be conquered.

So your 'conqueror' man, if he's borderline retarded and doesn't understand anything, can have sex with a 'conquered' man, and be perfectly fine. But any other kind of heterosexual man will feel terrible about the situation - he will both feel the inappropriateness of conquering someone who ought not be conquered (aking to having sex with a sheep...), and tremendous pity for the man with so many problems. So he will know all this, and will not be able to go through with the act. His body won't let him.

I have already responded to this above. However I will expand. I see it rather that a healthy "conqueror" (male or female) desires a healthy "conquered" (male or female). I believe that any variation goes into other realms instead of romantic sexuality. One who is healthy will seek another who is healthy. Thus I still fail to see why the gender of that other person matters.

[Godless Capitalist]

People can control the values they adopt, volitionally. Animals cannot. Sexual preferences among people are certainly subject to volition, while those among animals may be deterministic. The reason: the way influences affect volitional consciousness is different from the way influences affect nonvolitional consciousness.

Maybe, but I do not see any proof for this view.

[Charles]

(Ironically I am detracting from my studies of physiology in order to write this...)

To understand my full views consult my post on pg 28; I want to analyze the point raised by freecapitalist - that of Gender. Does a homosexual man taking the 'dominated' role suffer a psychological 'debilitation'?

I must disagree;

Premise 1:

In relationships it is common for one partner to be in dominance, if not in the domestic situation, perhaps in bed. I appreciate a number of couples would pertain to have a relationship of mutual respect and admiration; but I am sure most would agree there is commonly (though not exclusively) a submissive partner.

Premise 2:

The characteristic 'Dominance' has just as much a base in psychological circumstance as being 'Submissive' does.

Conclusion 1:

Being dominant is no more down to psychological 'debilitation' (as immorally tainted as that word is) than does being submissive. They are both common and both have relatively normal/healthy psychological origins. (NB: The extent of each may differ - and only then can you bring into the question of abnormality and hence 'serious debilitation')

Premise 3:

The submissive partner can be male or female: Different societies have vastly different conceptions of gender (and there is an accepted distinction between sex and gender). If you do not accept this I am happy to give example of cultures where gender associated roles are vastly different to our own. Whereas the role of the lady was clearly submissive in, say, Victorian England, we have abandoned any prescription of such a role in our modern day society - women can for all intensive purposes express themselves as and how they like.

Consequently - a number of male/female relationships are dominated by strong female characters (indeed if asked to describe each member of some couples independantly you might use the words masculine to describe the woman, and effeminate to describe the man).

Premise 4:

This traditional role reversal is acceptable.

Final Conclusion:

If being a dominant or submissive partner in a heterosexual relationship is neither immoral nor of 'debilitating' psychological origins it is not necessarily of either immoral or 'debilitating' psychological origins in a same-sex relationship.

---------

For the record I happen to think that as little dominance/submission as possible is preferable - The best relationships work on mutual respect. I am simply pointing out a reality.

[JRoberts]

Charles, I believe you are responding to someone else and not to me. I did not say

Does a homosexual man taking the 'dominated' role suffer a psychological 'debilitation'?

What I did agree to about this was that a person going against their sexual identity would suffer psychological issues. My point rather was that, as long as a person acted in accordance with their identity, they could enter into a healthy relationship with the reciprocal identity, regardless of gender.

[Charles]

That is correct: I point out that the point was brought up in your last post - not that you brought it up. It would help if you sourced your quotes.

I have ammended it however.

[Solomon Eagle]

Thus, while it may be true that many of todays scientists are concluding biology determines sexual orientation, that has no more meaning than saying many of today's philosophers are concluding consciousness determines reality.

--

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation. That would mean biological mistakes were being made, in this case, anywhere from 2 to 5% of the time.

I find it impossible to believe Nature could be making such a mistake on that kind of scale about something(figuratively speaking) it considers to be most important.

This leaves learning as an explanation.

Since most homosexuals say they feel as though they'd "always been that way" (a big reason why they and others speculate the biological hypothesis) the learning (or misslearning) must be occurring very early.

My guess is that it is a strategy for dealing with the fear of death: it is as if they are saying , though subconsciously, "I'm not a propogating animal that passes on

its genetic code and dies--my love is purer in that it has nothing to do with biological propogation, and therefore nothing to do with the resulting death either." I find it very telling that a common derogatory name in the homosexual community for a heterosexual couple is "breeders".

[BurgessLau]

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation.

If the goal of a species is propagation, does it follow logically that every individual in a population (species) must be a propagator?

Wouldn't assuming so, in the absence of particular scientific evidence, be an instance of the fallacy of division, which is arguing from an assumption that a characteristic of a whole applies to its parts?

Can some individuals in a group serve other roles than propagation and yet further the survival of the species?

I am not a biologist. I wonder, are there other species that include individuals who are not breeders? If there are, that wouldn't be a proof, but it would raise questions for further investigation.

[Inspector]

I am not a biologist. I wonder, are there other species that include individuals who are not breeders?

Ants, bees, and other "social" insects.

[Betsy]

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation.

By that standard (which happens to be false) is the use of contraception an aberration or a mistake?

[ex_banana-eater]

If homosexuality is biological, then it has to be a mutation or mistake since the goal of any species is propagation. That would mean biological mistakes were being made, in this case, anywhere from 2 to 5% of the time.

I find it impossible to believe Nature could be making such a mistake on that kind of scale about something(figuratively speaking) it considers to be most important.

 

You should consider miscarriages. I've heard as many as 80% of embryos are simply washed out of the would-be mother's body.