The issue is a manifold one. First off, what is being "gay" mean? Foucault rejected the category of "homosexuality" for the reason (a reason, in all truth, among many) that categories were created by the few in power (whether the power be that of brute force or technocratic design) to enslave the majority. Leonardo Da Vinci was not "gay" for there was nothing of the kind, he however was convicted of the crime of sodomy -- society shifts, and so the identities, or indices, formulated by language necessarily shift. Vidal Gore made the point that in all known societies men have slept with men, women with women, (and now we know that the majority of animals with some form of social function exhibit homosexual behavior), so homosexuality is definitely natural, if not normal.
So, in brief, the language (or lack thereof) we have at our disposal does demarcate how we communicate each of our own sum total; that is: the (bundle-of?) self "is", and sexuality is a defining part of that self, whether one fully accepts it or does not.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
I honestly don't know. I recall that when I saw The Little Mermaid (soon after my 7th birthday) I was more drawn toward Ariel than Prince Eric. Was that a lesbian tendency asserting itself even then, or was it simply because at the time I played with girls more?
In contrast, another lesbian who saw the movie at about the same age told me she wanted to MARRY Ariel even then. But then she has a much higher sex drive than I do and maybe it was higher even then.
In retrospect I think I've always leaned lesbian but I didn't know back then.
•
icanuc Wrote:I totally agree! Yes we were born this way. We can't help who we are. Attraction is really strange some times. I was attracted to men at an early age for sure. I would say I knew at about 13 or 14. But later on dated females trying to hide. I eventually married then later in life became unhappy, I couldn't overcome the desire to be with a man. I know therre are lots of gay men in a straight relationship...thing is they hide and cheat on there wives. I am also sure some women have a desire to marry gay men...that one I will never figure out!
I know not all people are the same. I am sure there are some people that are born gay, but my attraction to men is different. I didn't like men at all... at first. Then I started watching porn and started to fantasize about the guy's cocks as much as I fantasized about the women they had sex with. I think I kind of slowly and unintentionally conditioned myself to find men attractive, like a food you don't like at first but after eating many times at a friend's house (after all you don't want to be rude to your host) you eventually acquire a taste for. So for me, at least, same sex attraction is an acquired taste. Now I no longer view men as purely sexual objects though. I sometimes wish I could share a romantic evening with another man.
As for the straight women marrying gay men thing... Some do it for financial reasons. I have also heard of gay men and straight women being emotionally involved but not attracted to each other [sexually].
•
"baby I was born this way" 
•
I also believe that no-one can be 100% straight or gay. A lot of people that are homophobia are those who have some feeling for guys themselves; I guess they was taught that it is not right so they try hard to deny it..
•
StevenL Wrote:"baby I was born this way" Guess you are Lady Gaga's fan. ^^
•
Natecott Wrote:The issue is a manifold one. First off, what is being "gay" mean? Foucault rejected the category of "homosexuality" for the reason (a reason, in all truth, among many) that categories were created by the few in power (whether the power be that of brute force or technocratic design) to enslave the majority. Leonardo Da Vinci was not "gay" for there was nothing of the kind, he however was convicted of the crime of sodomy -- society shifts, and so the identities, or indices, formulated by language necessarily shift. Vidal Gore made the point that in all known societies men have slept with men, women with women, (and now we know that the majority of animals with some form of social function exhibit homosexual behavior), so homosexuality is definitely natural, if not normal.
There are problems with Foucault's post-structuralist understanding of sexuality though. Foucault's opinions are pretty much accepted as gospel truth in the academy these days, although with some modifications. However, the late Yale historian John Boswell, and others, have made a good point that even without the idea of gay identity, sexuality has often been a locus of group identification for individuals. I generally agree that the current conception of "gay" as an identity category as a response to homosexual desire is a phenomenon of the 19th century (but not merely because of bourgeois science, but a wilful process of self-identification that occurred as a result of a shift in emphasis of relationships from one of economics to the love match). However, it is not the first time these categories have arose, there is for example the "Molly" subculture of 18th century England, essentially gay cross-dressing prostitutes, and the men who frequented their club (called Molly's because of the name of the woman who ran the brothel). Homosexuality has been a locus of male-bonding at many periods in history. That is why I take issue with Foucault's objection to the identity category, his so called "happy limbo of non-identity" that is nothing more than a fantasy. I think that sexuality has always formed part of the identification apparatus of individuals. Think along lines of class, the idea of "blue blood" is implicitly sexual, sexual object choice was intertwined with class identity because who people had sex with was a matter of class determination.
Then again we have to consider the large empty spaces in the record of human sexuality. Prior to the rise of modernity in the 17th and 18th century, the only people we hear about are the upper classes and their culture. We have little access to how the lower classes understood themselves in terms of identity.
Also, as a clarification, Foucault believes power creates truth, not that the people in power invented homosexuality. In the sense that he believes their are legible motives to the production of new meanings, even if they are not those who are in charge of things.
Natecott Wrote:So, in brief, the language (or lack thereof) we have at our disposal does demarcate how we communicate each of our own sum total; that is: the (bundle-of?) self "is", and sexuality is a defining part of that self, whether one fully accepts it or does not.
This is true, but I also think we should question the idea that we think radically differently from people who came before us. I'm also interested in the way these ideas travel across cultures and the emergence of Western conceptions of homosexual identity have sorta become globalized in the last 50 years. One day I'm going to make a serious search for an academic study of the process. The closest I've come is talking with a Chinese politics professor who has had some passing interest in the Chinese gay rights movement. China is an interesting case because we can see a direct imposition of Stalinist anti-homosexual ideology into the Maoist state, then a gradual coming over to a liberal attitude towards sexuality as China has slowly liberalized since Deng Xiaoping. But my knowledge of non-Western cultures is sketchy and I don't want to make generalized statements about the attitudes in other countries, especially when I have never been there.
•
electricmonk Wrote:I think, maybe, a little of both - no-one seems to have the complete explanation.
The real problem comes when it's a case of identical twins, as has happened more than once. Genetically identical and brought up in the same environment but one is straight and one is gay.
Explain that! :confused: Uhm, I'd never thought about this matter of identical twins before. I search on the internet, it might be something about gene or sort of, they said if one of them is gay, then it is 60% that the other one is gay, too. wow, it is high proportion.
•
People are an innate part of birth, yes. Even gay ones.
•
both innate mixed with acquired lol
•
|
Are gays innate or acquired?
