Firstly, I beg that the impatient folk waiting for me to get to a point with which they can disagree might bother to lend me their ears rather than their fervent beliefs.
The best way to understand anything about humans is to look at history, especially cultural history. Look at the views people had, look at all the other religions in the world, but before you start, put away your assumptions. Put away the idea that there is right and wrong. Put away any concepts you may have of a “natural order.” At the very least, it is important that you put away the idea that any assumptions or intuitive interpretations you make will be right. Now, please let me show you some history.
Human history starts with where humanity started, which in turn has a story of its own. Even if one do not “believe” (a misuse of the word if ever there was one, but that’s a subject for another day) in evolution, one must recognize that humans share roughly 98.4% of their DNA structure with chimpanzees and bonobos, the latter of which it is often theorized actually possess even more shared DNA with us. Now, some may ask, what the hell is a bonobo and what does it have to do with San Francisco? The bonobo is a close cousin of the chimpanzee, and its relation to San Francisco is the significance of bonobos’ natural behavior to what is natural behavior for humans. Before delving too deeply into that behavior, let me stress my connection between bonobos and humans based purely on DNA.
Behavioral Genetics, a branch of scientific study which has recently caught my interest via the book Born That Way by William Wright, has illustrated that no aspect of human behavior is without the influence of our DNA. Reared-apart twin studies even suggest that up to 60% of our behavior, preferences, and habits are strongly influenced by DNA. Now, humans can always rebel against their programming, but they are only as flexible as their genes can allow them to be. A certain form of a gene exists that increases likelihood of risk-taking, due to its effect on structures in the brain and their reaction to certain stress- , fear- , and excitement-inducing chemicals released when humans are exposed to high-risk situations. Without that form of the gene, it will at the very least be harder for an individual to work up the courage to partake in risky activities, but they might very well still partake; however, they cannot enjoy it like those with the increased risk-taking form of the gene because they cannot change the structure of their brain (so far as current modern technology and most current laws surrounding medical practice both currently decree).
Because DNA is so ubiquitous in life-forms on earth, and has such profound effects on their behavior, we can easily deduce that DNA is at the core of what makes behaviors “natural” in the world. DNA is the blueprint off of which our brain structures are built, and off which various other structures in the body are built that interact with our environment and in turn dictate what chemicals and proteins reach our brain and are interpreted, sometime changing the brain in notable ways. Chemistry is thus the basis for our behavior, both in environmental effects on the brain and the hereditary behaviors that are less flexible. Now, with DNA that is 98.4% shared with bonobos, we can easily deduce that there are some serious similarities between both parties not just in physiology (which is why chimps and bonobos are used in medical research) but in behavior, intelligence, and awareness (which is why many animal rights people get so angry about that research).
Natural behaviors for bonobos are very interesting. Rather than being violent like many other apes, including common chimpanzees, bonobos prefer to resolve conflict through sexual intercourse whether the conflict be between members of the same sex or the opposite sex. Sexual relations between bonobos occur in order to greet each other, bond, exchange favors such as sexual intercourse in exchange for food (prostitution is not only the oldest profession in the world, but perhaps the first to evolve in other species?) resolve conflict, and reconciliation after conflict. The sexual practices include: oral sex, masturbation (mutual and alone), frottage, tongue kissing, and face-to-face mating––and these practices are recorded to occur between not merely a male and a female, but also female and another female, and/or a male and another male. There are also no apparent taboos concerning incest, or age gaps.
Bonobos are not unique in showing examples of homosexual/bisexual behavior. Elephants, chimpanzees, some species of whale and dolphin, and even penguins: all show instances of homosexuality and sometimes even monogamous homosexual relationships. These happen naturally all across the animal kingdom. Bonobos, however, with their close evolutionary and/or genetic relations to homo sapiens, provide a unique vantage point for understanding human sexual relations, and how truly natural the taboo truly is.
Now I’ll really get to the point. Homosexuality is not only natural, but most likely due to a particular arrangement of genetic factors. I am not suggesting that there is any “gay gene” by any means. Recently in Scientific American: Mind’s article “The Character Code” a gene was discussed that influenced the ability of people to cope with tragic events in their lives. It has been discovered in two forms: a longer version with more nucleotides, and a shorter, less adequate one. People who inherit the longer both parents are best able to bounce back from tragic events, whereas those who inherit the shorter version of the gene from one or both parents are more likely to find tragic events harder to overcome, making them more susceptible to depression.
Consider a gene or a collection of genes that may make people attracted to the pheromones of another person. A longer or shorter version of the gene may influence the degree to which a person prefers people of the male or female sex. This encourages the idea that people, as the (in)famous Dr. Kinsey wrote, “do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.” That’s why I prefer his continuum of sexual orientation which scales from zero (exclusively heterosexual) to six (exclusively homosexual) with an extra category “x” for people who are asexual. Most people, according to Kinsey, are somewhere in between, their preferances leaning more strongly toward one sex, but still attracted to the other to some extent. People who are not exclusively of one sexuality or the other, but are not exactly in the middle, are more likely to not recognize their attraction, deny their attraction, or simply never act upon their attractions because of personal beliefs and/or societal pressures.
“But,” one might think, “the natural forms of sexual behavior of humans are not so taboo-free as those of bonobos! We are not apes who freely fornicate at every opportunity! We have civilized societies wherein that sort of stuff is not to be accepted.” Now, I move forward in my little drabble concerning history. Look at the history of human civilization and tell me that humans do not naturally have some predisposition to every form of sexual behavior enacted by bonobos, plus some unique variations of our own? That beloved icon of western civilization that was the Roman Empire practiced homosexuality, orgies, and pedophilia with gusto. The Kama Sutra discusses relationships in and out of wedlock between men and women, women and women, and we can only guess what has been lost over time to censorship and questionable copying practices. Japan has traditions of homosexuality far back into its history where a samurai would not have been considered terribly unusual for having a romantic tryst with a theater boy. Various tribes of Native Americans considered transgendered people holy and allowed them to marry whomever they might wish, and/or found same-sex relationships quite permissible.
One might ask what purpose sexual attraction to members of the same sex might provide on an evolutionary basis. How are the demands of nature served by this quirk? Surely if people are not engaged with the opposite sex, they are not breeding, which is not beneficial to the creation of offspring, which in turn does not help the survival of the species, right? Wrong. According to the Kinsey report, few humans are exclusively homosexual, which means that many of those attracted to the same sex are also likely to have partners of the opposite sex some of the time, and since the majority of people seem to be primarily heterosexual with some degree of variation, they will most likely pick a long-term life parter of the opposite sex despite having a few homosexual trysts. In early human history, wherein condoms were not easily accessible, that the likelihood of offspring creation still was not bad. Also, there are simply times that one does not want to have a baby, and thus same-sex relations could ease sexual tension that might otherwise cause either inconvenient pregnancy or increased frustration between community members. The Greeks showed especial fondness for this, and despite being married to women (who, especially in Athens, for the longest time were thought of as not being human, but instead as animal-level-intelligence beings men copulated with in order to create children––no wonder their gods had a penchant for bestiality) had more romantic loving relationships of not-terribly-monogamous-or-commonly-very-long-term sorts with other men.
Humanity put its own limitations in place by establishing monogamy, but even that practice is not ubiquitous in the population. There are those who never experience sex or sexual feelings, there are those who never settle down and have no need to, there are those who take a life-long partner but maintain an “open” relationship. Human sexuality is as natural as human emotion, and varies similarly from person to person. There are harmful and distorted varieties visible in pedophiles, rapists, and psychopaths, but science has already recognized such harmful/destructive variants to be the products of emotional disorders and or diseases of the mind. Homosexuality is not a disease or a symptom of mental/emotional disorder, as the academic and scientific communities of psychology now fully recognize (especially after the Kinsey Reports and more recent studies). Also, monogamy is a fairly recent evolution in humans, and mostly seems to be a matter of practicality meant to serve civilization’s need to be sure of an heir’s origin, rather than natural preference, otherwise why would adultery even be an issue? As long as there has been record of monogamy, there has been record of its voluntary violation.
The strong emotions people feel in opposing homosexuality are in reaction to the idea that the actions carried out in relations between members of the same sex are if not “unnatural” than certainly “not normal,” but normalcy is even more of an illusion than “natural.” To quote Douglas Adams, “There are some oddities in the perspective with which we see the world. The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, at the surface of a gas-covered planet going around a nuclear fireball, and think this to be normal, is obviously some indication of how skewed out perspective tends to be.” Humanity itself is abnormal. The threat people see to their ideas of normality is the threat that there is something they do not believe in that is going to be forced upon them, and they are for whatever reason disgusted and/or deluded about the beliefs in general: “Because other people like people of the same sex, our people might begin to believe it to, but that does not fit in with our culture.” It is natural human xenophobia. It is as natural as the male chimpanzee fighting off a strange male. We are not bonobos, but I can hope we are more civilized than chimpanzees, and will not so violently reject those who are not like us. We don’t have to have sex with them, but we should not call them names either, especially not names that we ourselves do not contemplate the depth of.
“unnatural” “wrong” “immoral” “not normal” “not right”: all of these things, with the exception of the first which I hope I dispelled before more directly combating the others, are illusion. It was normal in ancient Greece for men to love other men, or even for men to love young boys. It was similarly normal in Rome. There has always been quiet awareness of sexual relations between women, whether hinted at in such literature as works by Voltaire, or the Memoirs of Jaques Cassanova de Seingalt, or even the Kama Sutra; such asides were not completely outside the norm, and let us not forget the ancient Greek poet Sappho, the ilse of Lesbos, or the girls Artemis so jealously guarded from the hands of men, that she might have them herself and so that when Zeus disguised himself as Artemis and impregnated one of the girls, Artemis then flew into a jealous rage. The definition of “normal” is an inconstant one; it is in constant flux with the mind with which a person views the moment. As for calling anything abnormal wrong or immoral: it is simply slander used against an enemy who may not even want to be your enemy.
I think I have said all that I can say. I hope you have enjoyed this bit of history.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Very nicely done.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I'm glad you liked it.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
You're welcome.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Excellent post. Though:
'or the girls Artemis so jealously guarded from the hands of men, that she might have them herself."
Source for that?
I'm a mythology buff, and I had a good Latin teacher who explained that Roman mythology was just Greek with different names, and explained about Artemis and the women she kept. Zeus at one point transfigured himself to look like Artemis in order to seduce and impregnate one of these girls untouched by other male hands. Artemis flew into a bit of a jealous rage.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
I read about Artemis, but nothing about her being lesbian. O:
Some scholars of Ancient Greece consider it a controversial interpretation of the mythos, if only because the Ancient Greeks were profoundly uninterested in female sexuality (it took them a while to "decide" that women even has souls and were not actually another species of beast), but that may just be part of why that aspect of Artemis is so underplayed, like Zeus' relationship with his "page" (read: butt-boy) Ganymede. Especially with the rise of certain aspects of Roman culture, which had already seriously warped Greek culture anyway, homosexual relations amongst the gods were heavily underplayed. Diana became a goddess stressing virginity and purity, and Ganymede became a bit obscure. This goes with Roman culture turning against its own radiacalness, and various forms of excesses and sexuality became taboo enough not to mention in public, especially if one was of high social rank, hence how scandalized most high-ranking Romans were when Emperor Nero was ravished in public by his gay lover.
Artemis' story's homosexual overtones are recognized by more liberal writers, by those who study women's history, and by scholars of homosexual literature, but most current basic books on the subject of Greek mythology, I find, hardly mention them. It's sad how many of the really good bits get left out of such literature: the birth of aphrodite due to Zeus cutting off his father's testicles with an adamite scythe so that they fell into the sea and from the "seafoam" cam Aphrodite, Zeus' impregnation of women in the form of not just a swan but a goat and a "shower of gold", some blasphemous king being cursed so that his daughter fell in love with a bull and constructed a special wooden apparatus in order to have intercourse with the bull and thus birth the cursed beast called the minotaur who eventually got tossed into a labyrinth.
I'm full of useless information. Mythology happens to be one of my particularly impressive collections of it.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
...'nuff said.
perci
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
:)
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Very well researched. I think the lack of detractors' comments testifies to the strength of your argument. I'll be interested to read further comments.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Thank you very much. I was honestly hoping that my sources, such as they are, would be enough.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
I dug your blog. I would love to have started a dialogue, but it's difficult when I agree with everything you've said. What makes it even more difficult is I just adore learning something new.
Besides I once had a cat named Artemis =o)
~~~><~~~
"One of the things that draws writers to writing, is that they can get things right that they got wrong in real life, by writing about them"
~ Tobias Wolffe
Thank you very much! I'm glad I was able to teach you something, and that you enjoyed it.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
The best argument I have heard. Eloquent, entertaining, and educational. I wish people will actually take the time to think that way. Normalcy is an illusion; I have never in my life met one who actually falls in that category.
Thank you muchly.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
And here I thought I knew Greek mythology. Guess there's always room for improvement.
Also, you're not kidding about the Japanese. When I was in France I found this monster book on the history of homosexuality, and it included several paintings of Japanese porn. Dildos everywhere.
So, thank you for the post. This was well-researched and composed and deserves its publicity.
T.k.
Mythology is humanity at its best, worst, and weirdest. Have you heard the story from Norse mythology wherein Loki is impregnated by a stallion in order to win a bet? It's fantastic.
The line about dildos cracked me up. Thanks for that. And thanks for the compliments as well. I'm flattered.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
No, I hadn't heard that one. The only book of Norse mythology I've read had the really explicit bits cut out.
Have you ever read American Gods by Neil Gaiman? Very informative, yet entertaining.
De nada.
T.k.
Oh, the story is grand. I believe its on a website called "GodChecker" which is grand as well.
Neil Gaiman is one of the highest-ranking deity in my pantheon of personal gods. I love that man, and I love that novel; although, Sandman is still his best work by far.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
So that's where Sleipnir came from!
T.k.
There's also the bit about him tricking Thor into cross-dressing...
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Ever seen "But i'm a Cheerleader?"
My Norwegian heritage made me gay. Our gods got freaky.
(And I am fairly goddess-like, if you ask any of the lesbians in the Twin Cities area).
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
We watched it in GSA my sophmore year. Good times.
Norse gods rock. Any pantheon with a one-eyed omniscient warrior con artist as its leader (see: Odin) has to be good.
(Avoiding flirtatious/suggestive comment)
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Where's the blushing smiley when you need it?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
Not to laugh at the almost-choking-to-death thing, but that's pretty amusing for me.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Amazing blog. As Ediblewoman said, the lack of detractors really shows how well this is written and defended before the detractors even had a chance to tear into it.
five star :D
Thanks very much. My goal was to set up a defensive wall of sorts, but it's like I built a snow fort and a big pile of snowballs and now nobody in the neighborhood will attack me.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
There's a book that I think you would be interested in called The Birthday of the World by Ursula LeGuin. She writes science fiction, but she focuses more on the anthropological view of the planets and cultures she invents. It's one of the assigned books for this class I'm taking (Religion and Science Fiction, an english lit class). We were just discussing this morning human sexuality and how it relates to our images of God(s).
That sounds like a really nifty book, and your class sounds fun as well. I'll have to check out the former and find a similar version of the latter somewhere if I can. Thanks.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
So I understand that the purpose of homosexuality is more of a coping mechanism for sexual tension? (or any tension for that matter, as the bonobos use it to solve disagreements - the make up sex is great I guess :) ) If so, why do there seem to be so many people that are solely homosexual? I have a few homosexual friends who have tried to... well "convert" me, but is it unnatural that I would have no desire whatsoever for that type of interaction? Maybe that's a ridiculous question, but it's legitimate to me...
Never let the world get you further down, it already has the weight of gravity on your shoulders.
As for trying to convert you. It could be that they are just copying heterosexuals who try to convert homosexuals to heterosexuality. They might believe that they choose to be homosexual instead of it being genetic, so they believe that they can make you choose to be homosexual. But that's just my take on it.
They may also just think you are attractive, and thus have hopes of being involved with you. I have friends who have tried similar things, though I myself have not found such an appealing opportunity as to make me wish to do so.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
While I feel it very important to state that human homosexuality as modern culture knows it––people who prefer to be with the same sex––are not the product of a "coping mechanism" so much as their own nature. Their preferences come from a mixture of genetic factors, the same ones that make a pair of identical twins raised apart have similar tastes in cars, clothing and other aesthetics, that are or are not present in their DNA. The DNA codes for brain structure and chemicals in the body that inevitably effect the body and brain.
There are genes that heavily influence people's preferences in choosing a mate. My mother and I like tall men. Our olfactory senses program us so that no matter how much we like a person's personality, if their immune system is of a sort too genetically similar or incompatible with our own, we will not want to be romantically involved with them; they won't smell quite right, their kisses won't feel right, there won't be the right chemistry.
Most likely, similar genes make people prefer men and/or women as sexual partners. For the sake of human reproduction, obviously the male-female combination is going to be around in large amounts due to the survival advantage it poses, but monogamy has never been the single key factor to human survival, for clearly even humans in happy relationships still find other humans outside that relationship to be attractive. Thus monogamy and heterosexuality genes are not ubiquitous. The usefullness our ancestors found in attraction to the same sex, in all its various degrees, is uncertain, but it has clearly been passed on. Some homosexuals may possess monogamy-predispositioning genes as well. Some heterosexuals clearly lack it.
Human sexuality depends very much on chemistry. The right combination of attraction, personality factors, and emotion can win anyone over, possibly even to the degree of making one break from previous assumptions about one's sexuality. A lesbian may fall for a man. A straight man may do the same thing. However, most people probably have preference for one sex over the other in a definite way, or at least a way they see as definite until they meet someone who makes them question it. This is why a spectrum view of sexual preferences is better than a few scattered labels.
It's not abnormal to not be attracted to someone of the same sex, but don't be completely closed off to the idea until you've met every single other man in the world. Your genes and your aesthetic tastes make you sexually attracted to the opposite sex, and perhaps you lack/are not influenced by the genes that predispose other humans to feel differently. That is your nature. My nature makes me see both the male and female human figures to be attractive. Saying that a behavior or preference is "natural" or "unnatural" is the same as trying to define is as "normal" or "abnormal." People always act according to their chemistry, which in turn is between 60 and 70 percent dictated by their DNA in most cases, and what makes up nature if not DNA?
Also, the apparently large number of people who are purely homosexual is actually difficult to measure. Culture tells people to be one or the other. People react to culture like any other environmental factor, and it can change our brain chemistry in small or large ways depending on how malleable we are to outside interference. "Bisexual" is too often looked down upon because people within and out of the gay community view it to mean things like "confused" "promiscuous" or even "attention-seeking" which makes people shy away from the label. People can go against their predispositions when they are incomplete more easily than when they are all-consuming. Bisexuals may be easily cajoled into thinking themselves to be "going through a phase" or something, perhaps even to the point of changing their own brain structure through sheer force of will, if they're brains are suceptible to such self-molding (because not all are), until they truly believe themselves to be either purely homosexual or purely heterosexual.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
"Bisexual" is too often looked down upon because people within and out of the gay community view it to mean things like "confused" "promiscuous" or even "attention-seeking" which makes people shy away from the label.
Isn't that the truth. I have put up with so much shit when I come out as bi to people that for awhile I just stopped admitting to it. But, when I got to college I got sick of hiding my attractions and let everyone know. What surprises me is that no matter how many times I tell someone I am bi, the next time I see them I have to tell them again and they act surprised. I get the feeling they expect that I will be over that phase by the next time I see them so it isn't important to remember. I've had both gay and straight individuals call me a slut (in a joking/not-so-joking way) when I told them.
The Heathen's Guide
PRIDE
ENVY
GLUTTONY
Absolutism on either end of the spectrum is frustrating. While I identify exclusively as lesbian, I recognize that sexuality is a spectrum. But I think people like their categories, and they have difficulty when people defy their personal organizational methods. It is one thing to have two sides--the gays can say "I'm not that, I'm this." When someone says "I'm not that AND I'm not this...I'm both..and neither," people don't know how to file it in their brains.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I've met far too many people who simply refuse to take into account anyone else's opinions because they either do not understand them, or consider themselves to be above the person explaining their opinion. "It does not fit into my world, therefore it is wrong." Also, if explanations get too complex and away from the oversimplified mainstream labels, average uninformed people are more likely to assume that all the elaborations made are either lies to cover up something like promiscuity, or generally just unreliable theories not considered fact.
People create their own ideas of reality and consider them concrete, and as Bertrand Russell said, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
I'm a bisexual and I've been deliberately celibate for three or four years now, but my name has still randomly cropped up in a few bizarre rumors involving things like lesbian orgies in my school's orchaestra room. I've never been insulted/accused to my face about the issues around bisexuality, but I have a tendency to scare people. Something about my capacity for scathing verbal abuse, elaborate colorful threats involving scissors, crowbars and/or rubber bands, and my trademark steel-toed boots. Also the fact that I tend to make arguements like the ones in this blog when provoked.
The rumors were still extremely obnoxious, especially due to their destructive effects on my good friend's relationship with her boyfriend, who heard and believed the rumors before we knew they had started.
I consider myself lucky in that I live in Austin, Texas, where there is a higher gay-to-staight person ratio than even San Francisco. There are many other places here in the South where I might have been burned at the stake by now...
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
I heart Austin. If it weren't in Texas, I'd consider living there.
I am ashamed to admit that I have danced on the bar at that awful place...what's it called? Coyote Ugly? Worse, I was stone cold sober, so there's no excuse.
Oh, and congratualtions on your new right to buy dildos!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I know a straight guy who is in the marines, but who won $250 in a stripping contest at a gay bar.
And yes! It's legal to call sex toys sex toys and sell them as such in Texas! Huzzah! In another 21 days I can legally purchase them.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
This is the kind of story that everyone on the planet needs to be reading. If we're going to make attempts to connect and understand each other, we have to stare in the face what we think we're afraid of. Your plea in the beginning makes all the difference. It forces people to lend you their ears unconditionally. Beautiful. And I think it scares those who just want to pick at you away. Which is good of course.
I don't want to pick. You pushed me to out of my comfort zone and I am grateful. Your evidence is undeniable. I don't disagree. I just want to take things further in an attempt to explore. Can't human nature be "wrong?" I get you that "wrong" and "right" are illusions and the word is insufficient. But why can't we as modern humans reason that certain parts of our natural makeup could be not the way humanity should progress? I must admit that your argument makes me uncomfortable because I get the impression that you're saying we should just go with our human nature and not try to change it. Why not change? So, I can't hide my moral argument. I'm trying to take this to a fair level without making value judgements. I just feel that since I've accepted your evidence, could you entertain my questions?
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
Thank you so much for this comment. It makes me feel so good that I've challenged someone, that I've made someone think, and that they have questions. Questions, in my opinion, are the key to being a decent human being, therefore it's an honor to address yours.
As you clearly caught on to, I dislike the word "right" and "wrong" unless they are in relation to something like a math problem wherein an answer can be proven one way or another to be truly wrong, but I do see your point.
I did not mean to suggest that we cannot change our natures or human nature as a whole. I'm saying that instead of insisting that something is wrong, we instead examine it objectively and see if it is what we truly want for ourselves and if we can change it. All of the genetic factors that predispose for personality, sexual preference, and aesthetics are matters based in the structure and chemistry of the brain. Our environment, our thoughts, and our learning experiences change that chemistry all throughout our lives and effect on average about 30-40% of our behavioral/psychological traits, sometimes up to 50% in some less common cases.
Our thoughts are chemistry. Therefore, our thoughts can go against or even change our natures, but only if we can separate our thoughts from our natures. If we decide that something we want to do is wrong, we are less likely to do it, but it's still very possible that we will follow our cravings. It depends on self control in many cases, but some brains simply do not have such a capacity. Our genes tell us to some extent what the world should be like by predispositioning us toward certain behaviors such as traditionalism, dominance or submission, and support for government/the law. If someone lacks the chemical structures in their brain to control themselves or accept that they can control their nature, they will not be able to change it themselves.
The human brain is very, very malleable. It is also very, very complicated and stubborn.
As for whether there are some aspects of our natures that can be agreed upon as "wrong," yes, I believe there are. If a person's nature makes them an emotionally dysfuntional sociopath and causes them to kill people, there is something to be said for calling it wrong. If a person's nature makes them agressive and careless to the point that they hurt their children, there is something to be said for calling it wrong.
Just because it is our nature does not mean that it is good for us; however, we must think very long about and very critically examine each matter before we decide it can be called "wrong" just as I have done for homosexuality, which is neither wrong nor unnatural. It is also harmless to the world as a whole.
That which does direct harm to people, makes them hurt, cry, bleed, require therapy, takes something irreplacable from them, or damages that which makes them human: those are things that one might call wrong. Everything else is a matter of personal choices made by individuals asking themselves "should I follow my nature or change it?" in which they cannot and should not be punished or prejudiced against for their decision any more than they should be punished for having religion. So long as that personal religion does not involve live human sacrifice, rape, theft, abuse of other human beings against their will, the sadistic torture of live animals, or some other such crime, it is simply "inconvenient" human nature instead of "wrong" human nature.
I'm never going to say homosexuality is "wrong." I haven't really given it much thought before. I thought others were so silly for getting worked up about it and bashing each other, but I haven't formed an opinion until now. I have you to thank for that. It's getting late for me here in China, so I may have to make my own blog later. I will say that I see how homosexuality is natural human behavior for some while heterosexuality is natural for others. We have to respect each other because our genes are not the same.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
This has been the nicest exchange of differing opinions I've ever read on ProU? Way to go, both of you.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I find politeness to be more effective in an exchange of opinions. If I'm dealing with a civil person, they will reciprocate the politeness and we'll get along without outright hating each other, which is cool. And if they're agressive and/or rude, the politeness confuses them, which is entertaining. I'm thrilled that I'm getting so many polite responses even when our opinions differ. I like you people.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
if I haven't even formed my own real opinion yet? Especially since someone has taken the time to reason out their side and write a great blog, rudeness or hatred just doesn't belong.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
I'm glad I could help you, glad I could make you think, and glad that we both make sense. And you summarize well. Most of human existance comes down to "we have to respect each other because our genes are not the same" and that which does not can be covered by "we have to respect each other because we are not exactly the same."
I've gotten a bit of an ego-boost from our conversation, and it is making me happy. I feel very special. Thank you so much.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
You really can't change your nature. My proposed experiment- try to be gay. If you can do that, they we'll know that homosexuals can force themselves to be straight.
[Edit] Didn't see above exchange when I wrote this...
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I mostly agree with you: most people cannot change or permanently delete certain aspects of their nature that are so hard-wired as sexual preference, but I think that even that hard wiring can be flexible and people are not to be underestimated in their capacity to delude themselves.
I do not, however, think we were quite arguing about that. The question, I think, was more directed toward the ability to call some aspects of someone's nature wrong––not homosexual tendencies, but more dangerous/violent/immoral tendencies that are also effected by genetics. I did not directly adress those questions, so it might seem that I was suggesting human nature cannot be evil, when in fact a lot of it truly is: jealousy, xenophobia, reality distortion. I should probably write an elaborate blog about the biological aspects of human nature, controlling them, and when it might be within reason to use a word like "wrong" to describe part of someone's nature. Unfortunately, I just finished a writing competition that I'm very irritated not to have placed in, and my brain is dead, so maybe I'll do that later.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Yeah, like I said, I responded before I read the whole thread.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
To be honest, my reasoning was leading into whether someone who's nature it is to be homosexual could change it and choose not to be. And could a naturally heterosexual person choose to be genuinely homosexual? Thus, Jsaj's comment is valid.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
I'm heterosexual. I couldn't even try to be homosexual. It's not me. How can people expect homosexuals to change? Doesn't seem fair if it's genuinely who they are.
It really comes down to the moral argument then, whether you think it's right or wrong. Maybe that's why some people scream at each other, "You're wrong!" "NO, I'm right!!!" Silliness.
www.progressiveu.org/blog/americangirlinchina
What!!!! I'M RIGHT!!!!!!
lol
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Kudos. That was amazing. I have never before been so impressed with another person and their ability to articulate his or herself, at least not with such great support. I'm inspired.
Glad I could inspire.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Excellent entry! This is the first I have ever heard of bonobos. Very well-researched!
Being informative and a bit of a smartass at the same time = BONUS!
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
This is fantastically researched and executed. :)
Danke
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
I loved all the history in here and all the research you did for this! And I LOVE mythology, I really can't seem to get enough of it. Great blog!
You want to know how truly, sadly geeky I am? I didn't research this. I read this stuff recreationally. I'm a nerd, but instead of Dungeons and Dragons player's guides, I read psychology and behavioral genetics.
I'm glad you liked it so much. I'm surprised it seems to have come out as well as it did, and mythology is always a bonus––especially when its obscure and/or obscene.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
that immediately upon seeing the word "study," my brain turned off. So many people take a specific study or trial and try to let the words speak for themselves; honestly, when somebody gives me a bunch of numbers and facts without explanation, my first thought is "well... so?"
I pushed through though, mainly because I'm a dirty old man at heart and love to see the sexual connection between animals and ourselves. Sex IS natural, and though maybe not completely normal in some cultures, so is any form of hetero, homo, or trans- sexuality.
Thank you so much for explaining your thought pattern in a completely understandable, sometimes witty way. This made a lot of sense to me, especially because I didn't realize that bonobos masturbated.
Kudos for a fun read.
And thanks in return for the compliments. I live to entertain, and if it's informative, all the better.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Interesting. Reading more like this may sway me in another direction.
If you have any questions I can possibly answer, either for or against homosexuality in any context, please feel free to ask me via message board or private messaging.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
i think it took me the better part of an hour to read and re-read the article and all the comments. this page is exactly why i joined this site(that and the chance at a scholarship!) i loevd it. and i had never even heard of these bonobos. soemthing to look up. i jsut wish it was easier to express our sexuality in day-to-day lives. but its hard, espicially in a rural and conservitive state. ~}chatiks si chatiks{~
I'm glad you liked it, and found my writing to be of satisfactory quality. I'm familiar with bonobos via my geeky tendency to watch National Geographic, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, and even Animal Planet. I've done some reading on them as well, and they've been discussed briefly in my AP Biology class, but really I'm just geeky.
I'm unbelievably lucky to live in Austin. 90% of the rest of Texas would have possibly tried to kill me by now if I lived there, but in Austin I'm one of the milder and more passive members of the alternative sexuality community, so long as I'm not directly provoked. When provoked, I write articles like this.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II
Every time I was about to notice a flaw....
Your next sentence seemed to know where my mind would travel and you pulled me right back in.
I usually look for posts to disagree with...
this one, well, you'd have to be crazy to disagree.
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -F.N.
Thank you muchly. I was kind of hoping to attract detractors. When I write like this it essentially means I'm trying to pick a fight. Well, not a "fight" so much as perhaps an "ideological/scientific/logical/ethical brawl", but I've been spoiling for one of those long enough that I seem to have collected enough for an impressive defensive position. If I weren't so shocked and pleased, I'd be disappointed, but the ego boost is making up for it.
"Better a cruel truth than a comfortable delusion. " —Edward Abbey
"You've really worked out your banter, haven't you?"
"No, not really. This is a different thing–it's spontaneous and it's called wit."
-- Blackadder II