Were Freud/Kinsey right ?
- Thread starter lacsap1
- Start date
headbang8: [quote author=jonb link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=0#12 date=03/01/04 at 23:04:43]
I'm skeptical of the genetic determinist argument about homosexuality, personally. More likely, there would be a degree of genetic and environmental traits. Hormone washes in utero might have an effect, for example. Certainly overpopulation would; Kinsey noted that most homosexual contacts were in urban areas. [/quote]
I'm a big fan of the oestrogen-wash theory. I read somewhere that humans produce hormones in response to stress. In men, adrenaline; in women, oestrogen. Both would encourage adaptive emotional reactions to threat: men to fight an attacker and women to be more temperamentally committed to protecting their young.
Some of the things we know about homosexuality fit rather well with this theory. The high but not absolute correlation amongst siblings and twins. The tendency for what heritability there is to follow the mother's bloodline. The tendency for gay men to be younger siblings (I seem to remember reading that somewhere).
And then, of course, there's my mother--who spent at least one week a month waxing hysterical (and I choose that word deliberately). I swear that woman is a bowl of hormone soup!
And hey, presto! What did she produce? A card-carrying queer. Who has his own problem with mood swings, too!
(You know, I just noticed that I've spent four of my last five posts bitching about my mother. Oh, well. Even if Kinsey wasn't right, Freud was sure on the money...)
hb8
I'm skeptical of the genetic determinist argument about homosexuality, personally. More likely, there would be a degree of genetic and environmental traits. Hormone washes in utero might have an effect, for example. Certainly overpopulation would; Kinsey noted that most homosexual contacts were in urban areas. [/quote]
I'm a big fan of the oestrogen-wash theory. I read somewhere that humans produce hormones in response to stress. In men, adrenaline; in women, oestrogen. Both would encourage adaptive emotional reactions to threat: men to fight an attacker and women to be more temperamentally committed to protecting their young.
Some of the things we know about homosexuality fit rather well with this theory. The high but not absolute correlation amongst siblings and twins. The tendency for what heritability there is to follow the mother's bloodline. The tendency for gay men to be younger siblings (I seem to remember reading that somewhere).
And then, of course, there's my mother--who spent at least one week a month waxing hysterical (and I choose that word deliberately). I swear that woman is a bowl of hormone soup!
And hey, presto! What did she produce? A card-carrying queer. Who has his own problem with mood swings, too!
(You know, I just noticed that I've spent four of my last five posts bitching about my mother. Oh, well. Even if Kinsey wasn't right, Freud was sure on the money...)
hb8
[quote author=jonb link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=0#18 date=03/03/04 at 21:27:07] But then again, my ancestors employed transvestites (who married members of the same anatomical sex) as educators and matchmakers, so I might be a bit biased.[/quote]
But, Jon, it is my understanding that the Winktes (my use of the word is in deference to those who feel that the term berdache is derogatory) did not consider their role as an expression of sexuality, but rather as one of gender. They adopted female clothing and chores and ritual 'pregnancies' to separate themselves from men. They didn't consider themselves to be men or women, but members of a 'third gender'. They didn't view their marriages as same sex unions because they were not, by their point of view, male. Winktes were viewed as great healers possessed of shamanistic powers. The Lakota considered it a great honour to have such an esteemed member of society in their family, and it remained so until the Europeans came and decided that they were 'sexual deviants'. The Winktes largely went into hiding. I wonder where Kinsey would place them on his scale?
But, Jon, it is my understanding that the Winktes (my use of the word is in deference to those who feel that the term berdache is derogatory) did not consider their role as an expression of sexuality, but rather as one of gender. They adopted female clothing and chores and ritual 'pregnancies' to separate themselves from men. They didn't consider themselves to be men or women, but members of a 'third gender'. They didn't view their marriages as same sex unions because they were not, by their point of view, male. Winktes were viewed as great healers possessed of shamanistic powers. The Lakota considered it a great honour to have such an esteemed member of society in their family, and it remained so until the Europeans came and decided that they were 'sexual deviants'. The Winktes largely went into hiding. I wonder where Kinsey would place them on his scale?
- jonb,
You're correct, but gender is considered an element of sexuality, hence the term transgendered. For simple male/male and female/female relations, it wasn't an issue if they had sex, unless they were cheating or something equally bad. A winkte wasn't quite the same thing as being gay, but they were expected to marry someone of the same (anatomical) sex. Confusing, no? I've heard wicakte used to describe the reverse; it would be a contraction of wicasa kte meaning 'wishes to be a man'.
A lot of people have been too simplistic about it, actually. I mean, I've even heard some descriptions make it sound like a winkte was some sort of prostitute. And yes, 'Crazy Horse was gay' can be added to the mile-long list of 'lies about Crazy Horse'.
[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=20#22 date=03/05/04 at 17:37:21]But, Jon, it is my understanding that the Winktes (my use of the word is in deference to those who feel that the term berdache is derogatory) did not consider their role as an expression of sexuality, but rather as one of gender. They adopted female clothing and chores and ritual 'pregnancies' to separate themselves from men. They didn't consider themselves to be men or women, but members of a 'third gender'. They didn't view their marriages as same sex unions because they were not, by their point of view, male. Winktes were viewed as great healers possessed of shamanistic powers. The Lakota considered it a great honour to have such an esteemed member of society in their family, and it remained so until the Europeans came and decided that they were 'sexual deviants'. The Winktes largely went into hiding. I wonder where Kinsey would place them on his scale?[/quote]
A lot of people have been too simplistic about it, actually. I mean, I've even heard some descriptions make it sound like a winkte was some sort of prostitute. And yes, 'Crazy Horse was gay' can be added to the mile-long list of 'lies about Crazy Horse'.
[quote author=DoubleMeatWhopper link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=20#22 date=03/05/04 at 17:37:21]But, Jon, it is my understanding that the Winktes (my use of the word is in deference to those who feel that the term berdache is derogatory) did not consider their role as an expression of sexuality, but rather as one of gender. They adopted female clothing and chores and ritual 'pregnancies' to separate themselves from men. They didn't consider themselves to be men or women, but members of a 'third gender'. They didn't view their marriages as same sex unions because they were not, by their point of view, male. Winktes were viewed as great healers possessed of shamanistic powers. The Lakota considered it a great honour to have such an esteemed member of society in their family, and it remained so until the Europeans came and decided that they were 'sexual deviants'. The Winktes largely went into hiding. I wonder where Kinsey would place them on his scale?[/quote]
Ineligible: New genes arise by mutations of other genes. It's generally considered that if a mutation lowers the number of offspring markedly in most of those who have it, it will be selected against rapidly. Indeed, one argument against a gay gene is that it would be selected against particularly rapidly. But sometimes the presence of an apparently bad gene (for producing offspring) brings unexpected benefits. For example, the gene causing sickle-cell anaemia causes early death (very bad) if you have two copies; but if you have only one, it brings some protection against malaria. This creates a dynamic equilibrium, where the bad effects for offspring if you have two copies, exactly balances the milder good effects that many more individuals get, from having just one copy.
It's possible that gay genes may have known or unknown useful effects in people who carry them without being so strongly gay that they don't have offspring. Or even those who do, could have possible positive effects, as jonb points out, if they help the others who also carry the gene and will pass it on.
There is the other argument, that if sexuality is a very fine balance, common fluctuations might tip it without their needing to have positive or neutral selection benefits - the "shit happens" theory. It's hard to believe that new genetic mutations could be so common, however; and if the effect is non-genetic, identical and non-identical twins should show similar correlations, which they apparently don't.
It's possible that gay genes may have known or unknown useful effects in people who carry them without being so strongly gay that they don't have offspring. Or even those who do, could have possible positive effects, as jonb points out, if they help the others who also carry the gene and will pass it on.
There is the other argument, that if sexuality is a very fine balance, common fluctuations might tip it without their needing to have positive or neutral selection benefits - the "shit happens" theory. It's hard to believe that new genetic mutations could be so common, however; and if the effect is non-genetic, identical and non-identical twins should show similar correlations, which they apparently don't.
- jonb,
Correct, Ineligible. The old MZA (monozygotic twins raised apart) standard is used by psychologists whenever the issue of biological determinism comes up, whether it be homosexuality, race and IQ, or genes for aggression.
One thing I will say is, human sexuality is surprisingly complex, so a 100% correlation between genes would likely not occur. At the same time, I seriously doubt anyone chooses to be gay; I mean, as a teenager, being gay is dangerous. Gay teens are often harrassed in school, sometimes to the point of being gang raped (in the girls' case) or worse.
One thing I will say is, human sexuality is surprisingly complex, so a 100% correlation between genes would likely not occur. At the same time, I seriously doubt anyone chooses to be gay; I mean, as a teenager, being gay is dangerous. Gay teens are often harrassed in school, sometimes to the point of being gang raped (in the girls' case) or worse.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Just for the record;
In 1960 the most comprehensive investigation was carried out in Prague at the institute for sexual science: "They compared weight, stature, length of trunk, shoulder and hip width, size of the skeleton and the muscular apparatus, the laying on of fat, as well as the hairiness on the four regions of the body. The diameter of the areola of nipple was noted and the prostate examined by hand and classified. In additions the length of the flaccid penis and the longitudinal axis of the testicles were measured. Even the voice and the vocal apparatus were evaluated. Those tested were divided up into three groups: feminine homosexuals, non-feminine homosexuals, and heterosexuals. This investigation concluded that no differences in the bodily measures could be found among the three groups.
What was established was merely that homosexuals are somewhat lighter and have significantly a "larger penis" than heterosexuals."
In 1960 the most comprehensive investigation was carried out in Prague at the institute for sexual science: "They compared weight, stature, length of trunk, shoulder and hip width, size of the skeleton and the muscular apparatus, the laying on of fat, as well as the hairiness on the four regions of the body. The diameter of the areola of nipple was noted and the prostate examined by hand and classified. In additions the length of the flaccid penis and the longitudinal axis of the testicles were measured. Even the voice and the vocal apparatus were evaluated. Those tested were divided up into three groups: feminine homosexuals, non-feminine homosexuals, and heterosexuals. This investigation concluded that no differences in the bodily measures could be found among the three groups.
What was established was merely that homosexuals are somewhat lighter and have significantly a "larger penis" than heterosexuals."
Javierdude22: [quote author=lacsap1 link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=20#27 date=03/08/04 at 15:31:38]
What was established was merely that homosexuals are somewhat lighter and have significantly a "larger penis" than heterosexuals."[/quote]
Well, according to a few studies ive seen, theyre only 0.10 of an inch larger than for straight men. That could be the margin of error, or correlating with psychological causes of homosexuality.
What was established was merely that homosexuals are somewhat lighter and have significantly a "larger penis" than heterosexuals."
[/quote]Well, according to a few studies ive seen, theyre only 0.10 of an inch larger than for straight men. That could be the margin of error, or correlating with psychological causes of homosexuality.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
So back to the topic,
I don't believe in the "gay-gene" what -at this very moment- still hasn't been located.
I still put my money on the psychoanalytic reasons of Dr Freud and Dr Kinsey, the one of;
That humans are psychosexually neutral at birth and that both gender identity and sexual preference are learned through subtle interactions between a child and his parents, culture, it's social environment and location.
Freudist believe is a biogenetic (evolutionary more or less) principle with regards to both ontogenetic (prebirth) and physiological psychosexual development.
What the behavioral scientist generally terms psychosexual traits are the socially learned ones, but there is increasing evidence of geneticly determinant behavior patterns - let us call them for now "instincts" though that is not quite correct. Some of these are those associated with the physical aspects of the sexes -menstruation for a prime example- or
the basic sex act itself. (so Freud was basically right here?)
Also in the animal kingdom, especially among creatures of roughly similar size gender-wise like our closest animal cousins, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), we see even more homosexual activity, not enough to truly classify them as normally bi-sexual (though often bi-curious).
I don't believe in the "gay-gene" what -at this very moment- still hasn't been located.
I still put my money on the psychoanalytic reasons of Dr Freud and Dr Kinsey, the one of;
That humans are psychosexually neutral at birth and that both gender identity and sexual preference are learned through subtle interactions between a child and his parents, culture, it's social environment and location.
Freudist believe is a biogenetic (evolutionary more or less) principle with regards to both ontogenetic (prebirth) and physiological psychosexual development.
What the behavioral scientist generally terms psychosexual traits are the socially learned ones, but there is increasing evidence of geneticly determinant behavior patterns - let us call them for now "instincts" though that is not quite correct. Some of these are those associated with the physical aspects of the sexes -menstruation for a prime example- or
the basic sex act itself. (so Freud was basically right here?)
Also in the animal kingdom, especially among creatures of roughly similar size gender-wise like our closest animal cousins, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), we see even more homosexual activity, not enough to truly classify them as normally bi-sexual (though often bi-curious).
- jonb,
Technically, ontogeny refers to the life cycle itself, not just in the womb.
There's even a debate over whether or not anthropoids (monkeys and apes) even have instincts, but even instincts in other taxa are more complex than the term would imply. Felines, for example, will start by chasing small objects. Then they'll play with them. Eventually, if it's an animal, it dies, and the cat eats it. That chain reaction must go through without a hitch; a kitten who doesn't see any small objects will never catch a single rodent.
But unlike cats, we can eat just about anything. And our mating patterns consist of all varieties, from India's arranged marriages to the uber-polygynous harems of the Levant to polyandrous cultures in Tibet to multiple marriages to wife-sharing. Our governments may be anything from the worst dictatorship to a pure democracy.
But if environmentally influenced, that still doesn't mean one chooses to be gay.
There's even a debate over whether or not anthropoids (monkeys and apes) even have instincts, but even instincts in other taxa are more complex than the term would imply. Felines, for example, will start by chasing small objects. Then they'll play with them. Eventually, if it's an animal, it dies, and the cat eats it. That chain reaction must go through without a hitch; a kitten who doesn't see any small objects will never catch a single rodent.
But unlike cats, we can eat just about anything. And our mating patterns consist of all varieties, from India's arranged marriages to the uber-polygynous harems of the Levant to polyandrous cultures in Tibet to multiple marriages to wife-sharing. Our governments may be anything from the worst dictatorship to a pure democracy.
But if environmentally influenced, that still doesn't mean one chooses to be gay.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
[quote author=ORCABOMBER link=board=meetgreet;num=1078018594;start=20#30 date=03/09/04 at 00:09:35]You never hear of gay gangs beating up straight people, do you?[/quote]
Not yet, you ?
But what about the Stonewall riots in NYC.
There was some gay (gang) beating to the local straight public in Christopher street, I believe......
Not yet, you ?
But what about the Stonewall riots in NYC.
There was some gay (gang) beating to the local straight public in Christopher street, I believe......
ORCABOMBER: I think that gangs of EITHER sexuality are morons. Just that homosexuals, at least in "Greater London" are still 'the last minority'.'
