Phil Ayesho
Superior Member
Ledroit makes good points, as does the OP.
However, the thing that needs "getting over" is this ridiculous notion that "labels" are bad... and the notion that because things are difficult to understand or are complex, that it is worthless to try and come up with an explanation.
Labels and generalization are not bad; they are necessary. Without the ability to generalize and label our experience, we would be unable to comprehend the world around us, unable to theorize about causation, unable to predict the consequences of our actions.
All language IS, is labels applied to concepts and experience.
The fact is that we are all very nearly genetically identical. That is what makes us a species.
The fact is that there is SOME combination of genetics, developmental conditions, experience and, even, exposure to parasites and pathogens that defines why we behave the way we do and why we are sexually responsive in the manner in which we are.
There IS an ultimately true reality, a chain of actual causation, and that chain of causation IS comprehensible by human beings.
Complaining that many people adopt simplistic models for homosexual activity or attraction is no different than complaining that most people simply don't comprehend how their computer works... or, more to the point, complaining that we still don't understand how to make fusion energy work.
As science makes greater inroads into understanding the complexity of human behavior, we will come closer to understanding homosexuality.
And, you know what?- When we finally attain that full understanding, it will manifest in the form of labels.
Of Course, homosexuality is not a single behavior. OF course it is more of a spectrum...
But so what? PH is a spectrum, too, but we still have the power, and the need, to quantify and label that spectrum from acid to base.
And doing so allows us to move beyond "beliefs" about things into the less emotionally loaded area of knowledge about things.
Imagine the social result of a scientifically proven theory that shows that the vast majority of human males are born with the potential to enjoy sex with other males?
Imagine having the knowledge that specific conditions within the womb can make this propensity more or less pronounced?
Imagine if we could prove, beyond doubt, that the severity of homophobia was directly proportional to the person's own suppressed homosexual urges and self loathing?
Once these ideas move from 'belief' into the realm of 'fact', they cease to be accusations and become observations.
Once the idea that 80% of men will have sex with other men becomes merely the fact we all understand... what happens to the societal position of homophobia? What happens to the notions that men should not have sex with men? What happens to the concept that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
They become moot. Like believing the world ought to be flat.
Ledroit is right on target by pointing out that you can not even discuss the concept of "post gay" without labeling, without generalizing.
You become the opposite of the thing you aver.
Any statement decrying generalizations as bad is an oxymoron.
Using language... we can not speak of anything without generalization and labels.
Using our minds, we can not understand anything except thru generalization and labeling.
It is not wrong nor evil to generalize, as long as we all understand that we are generalizing.
The oft heard phrase- 'its the exception that proves the rule' seems stupid... but what it really says is that exceptions to a generalization establish that you are employing generalization.
And that ALL rules are generalizations.
But where would we be without rules? Without theory?
-Banging rocks in a cave.
However, the thing that needs "getting over" is this ridiculous notion that "labels" are bad... and the notion that because things are difficult to understand or are complex, that it is worthless to try and come up with an explanation.
Labels and generalization are not bad; they are necessary. Without the ability to generalize and label our experience, we would be unable to comprehend the world around us, unable to theorize about causation, unable to predict the consequences of our actions.
All language IS, is labels applied to concepts and experience.
The fact is that we are all very nearly genetically identical. That is what makes us a species.
The fact is that there is SOME combination of genetics, developmental conditions, experience and, even, exposure to parasites and pathogens that defines why we behave the way we do and why we are sexually responsive in the manner in which we are.
There IS an ultimately true reality, a chain of actual causation, and that chain of causation IS comprehensible by human beings.
Complaining that many people adopt simplistic models for homosexual activity or attraction is no different than complaining that most people simply don't comprehend how their computer works... or, more to the point, complaining that we still don't understand how to make fusion energy work.
As science makes greater inroads into understanding the complexity of human behavior, we will come closer to understanding homosexuality.
And, you know what?- When we finally attain that full understanding, it will manifest in the form of labels.
Of Course, homosexuality is not a single behavior. OF course it is more of a spectrum...
But so what? PH is a spectrum, too, but we still have the power, and the need, to quantify and label that spectrum from acid to base.
And doing so allows us to move beyond "beliefs" about things into the less emotionally loaded area of knowledge about things.
Imagine the social result of a scientifically proven theory that shows that the vast majority of human males are born with the potential to enjoy sex with other males?
Imagine having the knowledge that specific conditions within the womb can make this propensity more or less pronounced?
Imagine if we could prove, beyond doubt, that the severity of homophobia was directly proportional to the person's own suppressed homosexual urges and self loathing?
Once these ideas move from 'belief' into the realm of 'fact', they cease to be accusations and become observations.
Once the idea that 80% of men will have sex with other men becomes merely the fact we all understand... what happens to the societal position of homophobia? What happens to the notions that men should not have sex with men? What happens to the concept that homosexuals should not be afforded the same rights as everyone else?
They become moot. Like believing the world ought to be flat.
Ledroit is right on target by pointing out that you can not even discuss the concept of "post gay" without labeling, without generalizing.
You become the opposite of the thing you aver.
Any statement decrying generalizations as bad is an oxymoron.
Using language... we can not speak of anything without generalization and labels.
Using our minds, we can not understand anything except thru generalization and labeling.
It is not wrong nor evil to generalize, as long as we all understand that we are generalizing.
The oft heard phrase- 'its the exception that proves the rule' seems stupid... but what it really says is that exceptions to a generalization establish that you are employing generalization.
And that ALL rules are generalizations.
But where would we be without rules? Without theory?
-Banging rocks in a cave.
