Evidence of Homosexuality Occurring Naturally

[butterfly]

And so, the evidence keeps piling up that homosexuality is natural, not an artificial construct of society and not a sickness and not a choice.

Most recently (mentioned first by earis), it was announced that the celebrated swan couple of Boston dubbed 'Romeo and Juliet' are, in fact, a lesbian couple. And the picture of them is adorable, btw. I am tempted to make an icon.

A while back, it was reported that gay men respond differently than straight men to male sweat. Of interest to me is that while the study covered het women and men and gay men, there is no mention of any study of gay women. Because, you know, they don't exist. Or maybe men are just more important. One of those. (I can understand not studying bisexuals (my particular pigeonhole) or transexuals as that might 'confuse' the study, however silly that reasoning might that seems to me, however, gay women seem like the obvious fourth side of the pyramid).

I have a limited amount of patience for bigotry. More precisely, for continuing to be a bigot in face of contrary evidence (which is why Draco Malfoy gets slack from me for being 'a kid' and thus, quite literally, not knowing any better, and why now that he's shown that he has grown into himself, I will be more critical of any bigotry that may appear in the future).

Now, instinctively, I feel that certain things are not useful as a means of determining the merit of a person -- sexuality, gender, race, class. Anything that the person is born into. The argument against homosexuality is often centered around the absurd (to me) notion that it is a choice. It isn't. One can choose whether or not to act on feelings, but the feelings themselves are natural. I don't look at, say, Kate Winslet and choose to think that she's hot. I look at her and think that she's hot. There's no choice involved. The sexual thoughts that exist when I look at a picture of Ewan McGregor exist when I look at a picture of Kate Winslet (my brother is one of the people I know who clings to the 'choice' theory).

But there are, again, two ways of looking at it, depending on whether you value thought or action more highly. Some people say that they're fine with other people being gay as long as they aren't actively being gay. As long as they aren't acting on their homosexual impulses. Which is the attitude that has led to all sorts of horribleness. Repressing a part of one's true nature is something that I believe to be inherently unhealthy.

More than that, repressing something natural often leads to it, under pressure, becoming more intense. Russell T Davies talks about this on one of the QaF commentaries, about part of the reason that gay men are so flashy and obvious when they come out is due to the fact that they've been bottling up who they are and have built up a considerable backlog of homosexual desires. Hence, 'exploding' out of the closet.

The other side of the repression coin is that it's all right to act gay as long as you don't think gay. QaF (UK) ex -- It's okay to get blowjobs in a bathroom stall as long as you don't kiss the guy who's about to blow you. Which Stuart immediately, and rightly, calls 'bullshit' on.

You also used to see this approach in a lot of slash fiction (and it's still there, though less frequently). The whole "I'm not gay/bisexual, I just happen to be hopelessly in love with a man" thing. If a guy is in love with another guy, that's homosexual romantic desire. If a woman is in a sexual relationship with another woman, that's a gay relationship.

I'm with Kinsey in believing that 'pure' straights and gays are far more rare than bisexuals of varying degrees (but as a bisexual, that's a position that I'm inclined to agree with), and also, I believe that within any given person, sexuality is fluid. Some days, I'm more attracted to men and other days, I look at women first.

Of course, even within the category of pure straight/gay, fluidity is known to occur -- over time, a person's type can, on occasion, change.

Personally, I have a vast range of people that I find attractive. Some people have more limited sets of people that they find attractive. Which means that I'm often in the position of going 'but ___ is so hot!' and having someone who just agreed with me about another hot person disagree completely. Because, often, the people that I find hot don't have a whole lot in common and thus don't match to people who do have very specific types. The people who agree with me that Kate Winslet is hot, may not also agree that Sarah Michelle Gellar is gorgeous.

To sum up -- people are attracted to the people that they're attracted to. It isn't a choice. Thank you and good day.

Comments

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

Yup!
Did you see my flamingos?

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Aha! I did, yes.

I remember thinking, "Aw, so cute." Because it is. Flamingo adoption is love (they should get the same chance as the other couple, darnit).

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

I'll keep you updated on progress.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

And I will try to remember to actually reply to your posts rather than going, "Oh, sweet," and then assuming that you can magically hear me over the internet.

[trepkos.livejournal.com]

One day, this will be possible.
The magically hearing each other bit.
Except it'll be microchips of some such...bits and molecules no one's ever seen...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

So true. Technology continues to both leap and bound.

[jic]

Cool!

Some people have more limited sets of people that they find attractive. Which means that I'm often in the position of going 'but ___ is so hot!' and having someone who just agreed with me about another hot person disagree completely.

Would that be me? *wink*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

You are one of the people I was thinking of, definitely. Though my mom is also in this group -- ex. she agrees with me about the hotness of Lance but not about Xander.

[jenelope.livejournal.com]

Diana, I really hope that my Depp-Winslet hotness poll hasn't offended you. I was actually trying to prove that they were universally found hot, regardless of the beholder's gender, age, or sexual preference.

Personally, I find lots of people, men and women, hot, and lots of other men and women don't do a thing for me. For instance, I think SMG is gorgeous and sexy, but Eliza Dushku kind of unappealing. Likewise, Gerard Butler makes me growl, but Cillian Murphy's looks just bug me. I don't think my sexual preference influences it at all.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Diana, I really hope that my Depp-Winslet hotness poll hasn't offended you. I was actually trying to prove that they were universally found hot, regardless of the beholder's gender, age, or sexual preference.

Hee. No, not at all. I do think that there are fascinating cases of individuals who appeal to a wide variety of people regardless of 'type' or even sexuality, which I do find very interesting. In your write-up of the poll, you mention Angelina Jolie, and I've heard many people say things like, "I'm not into women, but that Angelina Jolie, wow."

Personally, I find lots of people, men and women, hot, and lots of other men and women don't do a thing for me. For instance, I think SMG is gorgeous and sexy, but Eliza Dushku kind of unappealing. Likewise, Gerard Butler makes me growl, but Cillian Murphy's looks just bug me. I don't think my sexual preference influences it at all.

I'm so amused that I can't sum up mental images of either of your guy examples. I know that Cillian was the bad guy in Batman Begins, but I haven't actually seen the movie, so I have this shadowy slinking figure in my head. And I know that I should know Gerard from somewhere (because the name is familiar) but I can't even think of where from.

And yeah, I agree that sexual preference isn't always a good guide to general attractiveness. My personal impulse is to shade everything with sexual desire, but that's... me. Personally.

[jenelope.livejournal.com]

Hee. No, not at all.

Whew! Thank God! Your post just happens to appear directly above my post, so I was worried. I had a very big "oh, shit! moment. (I hate offending people.)

I've heard many people say things like, "I'm not into women, but that Angelina Jolie, wow."

See, just about when I started hearing that all the time, was the time when I went a little off Angelina Jolie. I think she's mad, sizzling hot, but I no longer use her as an example of women I'd do. The chief reason I didn't pick her is that I thought hype would skew the results, whether through backlash or by omnipresence.

Gerard Butler images. Cillian Murphy images. One is handsome-pretty, the other is pretty-pretty.

I think sexual preference is a lousy guide to general attractiveness. I don't know how many times I've had this conversation with other women: "Isn't she hot?" "She's a girl." "So, what?" "So, I don't think girls are hot." For the record, I think that those women are wrong. Just because you don't want to actually share slow, warm, wet kisses with a woman, doesn't mean you are incapable of knowing whether you think she's hot or not. "Hot" does not always equal, "Oh, God, gimme!" It's just hot, on it's own, and with no further requirements.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Whew! Thank God! Your post just happens to appear directly above my post, so I was worried. I had a very big "oh, shit! moment. (I hate offending people.)

No worries. I have that same fear all the time.

See, just about when I started hearing that all the time, was the time when I went a little off Angelina Jolie. I think she's mad, sizzling hot, but I no longer use her as an example of women I'd do. The chief reason I didn't pick her is that I thought hype would skew the results, whether through backlash or by omnipresence.

Right, she's pretty much famous for that, at this point. And the hype would definitely have some effect on polling, I would guess.

Gerard Butler images. Cillian Murphy images. One is handsome-pretty, the other is pretty-pretty.

Aha! Gerard is the Phantom guy. I knew that I'd seen his name somewhere!

Hmm, and I see what you mean -- Gerard very much comes across as a 'man' with broad, strong features, while Cillian looks sharper, with a thinner face. I find both of them somewhat attractive, though neither really flips my switches (though I can tell you right now that my roommate would find Gerard not at all attractive -- his neck is too wide and his face too square).

"Hot" does not always equal, "Oh, God, gimme!" It's just hot, on it's own, and with no further requirements.

Very true.

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Lesbians exist, but since they're neither men nor attracted to men, they're not interesting to people corporatations and advertisers paying for scientific research.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Yeah, lesbians are only interesting in straight porn, when they're just doing it to make guys happy.

This is one of the reasons that I love Joss so much. Willow and Tara are a direct answer to that idea (even to the point of seeing them depicted that way in Xander's dream and how that is such a contrast to the 'real' them on the show).

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

Which is one reason gay women aren't included in the polls. No one cares what *we want*, only what *they want* from us. That, and most of us don't have the disposable income to interest advertisers.

Off to ignore them all now.

; )

[emo-woman.livejournal.com]

This is very interesting. I've come to feel that very few people are either completely one thing or another and rather fall into someplace in the middle. I also do not believe that being attracted to someone is wholly within a given human being's control. If that were so, I can think of quite a few bad decisions that I personally made based on being attracted on a purely gut level. I remember my mother reciting the folk wisdom that it was as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it was to fall in love with a poor one and I somewhat disagree.

I mean, if you lined up two identical twins raised separately, I might find both of them equally attractive based only on looks but looks alone are not the basis for real physical attraction. Each one will smell differently, act differently, have different experiences and perhaps interests. Appearance is only the tip of my attraction iceberg and personally smell and mannerism counts for a lot.

I identify myself as being probably 3/4's heterosexual with a healthy 1/4 interest in and appreciation for people of my own sex on a purely case by case basis. My earliest sexual feelings I can remember were actually about women upon discovering my father's playboy magazines although my earliest sexual thoughts were about men.

My "type" has definitely changed quite a bit over the years. I was strictly in the tall, dark and handsome category when I was in my 20's and now that I'm in my 40's I find that I'm more interested in a) younger people (mostly men) and that I have less of an adherence to "type" and more of a certain "I don't know" about them. It's a glint in the eye, a way of holding themselves, a thing about the hands (hand fetish of massive proportions) that matter to me.

It still isn't a choice, but rather something that happens in an unconscious part of my being and pulls me along from somewhere near the navel and the hindbrain. *g*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

It still isn't a choice, but rather something that happens in an unconscious part of my being and pulls me along from somewhere near the navel and the hindbrain.

Right, exactly. I mean, even in the cases where I'm finding something other than the physical overwhelmingly attractive, that's still not something that I'm choosing to feel. The ability to sing jumps a person's attractiveness up for me by quite a bit, but I certainly don't choose to be attracted to talented singers. I just am.

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

people are attracted to the people that they're attracted to. It isn't a choice. Thank you and good day.

This is an interesting topic in itself, whether applied to discussion of homo/bi/hetero-sexuality, or just in general.

Because, well... I used to have a very "limited range", as you call it, of people I found attractive. I still sort of do. But there was a point of my life -coincidently the period of time in my adult life that I'd count as my happiest, between age 20-25- when I did find a rather vast variety of people attractive. Or vaster, at any rate. I guess I, during this period of time, was simply more open, more forgiving of flaws, more prone to notice the little things that can make a person attractive, more likely see people with new eyes, to search for their attractiveness, to let them grow on me. However, I wasn't more prone to fall in love. It's always been difficult for me to fall in love. But since I wanted to be in love again (at aroun age 23, after having just gotten over my last one), I decided to consciously try to fall in love. Because I'd noticed that all three times I had been in love so far, there had always been a moment where I could have stopped my feelings from grwoing that deep. I had in other words, at all times let myself fall in love. And I realised that if I had been more open in the past, then I could probably have fallen in love more times than I had. So by that logic, I decided to try to force myself to fall in love, with someone I found attractive and appropriate. Needless to say that didn't work. My conclusion of that, has been, it is possible, at one point (before it's too late) to choose not to fall in love with someone. (That's the same thing as repressing, basically, you just don't allow yourself to think about the person that way, you shut down the potential feelings you can grow for the person, before they've run too deep for that to be possible.) But you can never, no matter how much you want to, choose to fall in love with someone you don't have those kind of feelings for. If that makes sense. :-)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

My conclusion of that, has been, it is possible, at one point (before it's too late) to choose not to fall in love with someone. (That's the same thing as repressing, basically, you just don't allow yourself to think about the person that way, you shut down the potential feelings you can grow for the person, before they've run too deep for that to be possible.) But you can never, no matter how much you want to, choose to fall in love with someone you don't have those kind of feelings for. If that makes sense.

That makes complete sense. If one shuts off feelings for long enough, they either die from lack of nourishment or they build up and explode. Possibly depending on how strong they are in the first place, possibly depending on the personality of the person in question.

[empressaurelius.livejournal.com]

*Applauds you*

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

*bows*

*giggles*

[versinae.livejournal.com]

That bit about the swans is so adorable! I love my home state.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

The swans thing is complete cuteness, definitely!

[starsprinkles.livejournal.com]

parks spokeswoman Mary Hines said yesterday in response to a Globe inquiry. ''It's just like one of those fairy tales; why spoil it?"

I know the woman didn't mean that line this way, but it makes me kind of sad because it implies a gay couple couldn't be as magically romantic as a straight couple, especially to kids. But I can forgive that because the rest of the story is SO DAMN CUTE.

Also, I couldn't agree more with your comments on sexuality.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that she meant it that way, a little. Have to have both sides of the argument in the article, after all. I do think it's sad if she can't see that it's still like a fairy tale. Even more so, because it's a certainty that they aren't together for procreation at all, but just because they want to be together.

[starsprinkles.livejournal.com]

Right, well, I meant I don't think she meant it as a deliberate statement on homosexuality, but rather it's just the built-in (by society) bias that most people have coming through.

And good point.. that does make it even more beautiful. Sigh.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of the above and just wanted to add a couple things.

First, there are gay sheep. For some reason, when I tell people this, they assume I'm kidding, but a significant portion of male sheep, when given a choice between a ram and a ewe to initiate mating behavior with, will consistently choose the ram. It's my usual example when someone states that homosexuality is found only in humans and therefore is obviously not "natural".

Second, it makes sense to me that many studies would study specifically gay men, straight men, and straight women, but not lesbians, although (at least part of) the study summarized in the article you linked would be improved by including lesbians. I'm far from up-to-date on the biological research on homosexuality, but I think the genetics and/or neuroscience involved in homosexuality is different between lesbians and gay men. Therefore, they'd probably be studied separately. Someone who wants to study responses of gay men would compare them primarily to straight men to see if there's a difference, but also compare them to straight women to see if the two groups, both attracted to men, have the same response. The response of lesbians is better done as its own study, which by the same reasoning would not include gay men, but would include straight men and women. That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is far more research being done about gay men than lesbians, and I couldn't give you a good reason for that.


Kind of veering off from a couple comments above, I think straight women tend to be much better at finding other women hot (or gorgeous, or sexy, or attractive) than straight men do, or at least we're more likely to admit it. There is definitely a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them, though, which I suspect is where a lot of people get caught up on bisexuality (whether they think that everyone's bi if they'll only admit it, or that no one's bi and they just have an asthetic appreciation for both genders). Do you get that a lot (from your brother, for instance)?

Kate Winslet's the woman from Titanic, right?
Sarah Michelle Gellar looks so *different* over the years; it's hard to pin down whether or not she's gorgeous. But then, that's just me. ;-)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Hah, I have heard of the sheep thing, though of course it was put in terms of 'this is how stupid sheep are' by my grandma.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is far more research being done about gay men than lesbians, and I couldn't give you a good reason for that.

I can give you a few bad reasons, but good ones, not so much.

There is definitely a difference between finding someone attractive and being attracted to them, though, which I suspect is where a lot of people get caught up on bisexuality (whether they think that everyone's bi if they'll only admit it, or that no one's bi and they just have an asthetic appreciation for both genders). Do you get that a lot (from your brother, for instance)?

My brother has heavy amounts of denial. Also, he's recently gotten much more religious and more traditionally religious. Love him, but yeah, disagree with him on so much that the sexuality thing is but a small part of it all.

Kate Winslet's the woman from Titanic, right?

Yep. Red hair. Nice breasts. Quite probably the reason that I went to see Titanic in theatres more than once.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

With you on the views of homosexuality, big surprise. & :-)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

No, I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you.

*grins*

[lasultrix.livejournal.com]

Of course gay men respond differently to male sweat than straight men! Male sweat makes me weak at the knees, and that's not a response from one of my, ahem, 'purer' impulses.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Yeah, one of the reasons that I didn't mention the article at the time it first appeared was because it was didn't "Well, duh,". Sadly, for many of the people (particularly in my country) it does not seem to be obvious.

*sigh*