Re: MD The MOQ Perspective on Homosexuality

From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Dec 23 2003 - 22:49:22 GMT

  • Next message: skutvik@online.no: "Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality"

    Hi Steve

    Of course, as Freud examined, the sexual
    fix can be come attached to inanimate objects
    i.e. fetishes. I have a very nice looking table right
    next to me now, lovely legs.

    regards
    David M

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2003 8:29 PM
    Subject: Re: MD The MOQ Perspective on Homosexuality

    > Hi Wim, DMB, all,
    >
    > > Steve wrote 16 Dec 2003 20:09:46 -0500:
    > > 'I was surprised that you would so whole-heartedly agree with DMBs claim
    > > that homosexuality is hardwired through DNA ... I find it hard to
    believe
    > > that there is a "pussy-loving" gene or a "dick-fancying" gene.
    > > ...
    > > I can somewhat understand why DMB would see sexuality as biologically
    > > latched since he does not use the same definitions of the levels as we,
    but
    > > do you really see human sexuality in all its complexity as a purely
    > > biological pattern?'
    > >
    >
    > Wim:
    > > No, not everything that goes under the name of 'sexuality', nor
    everything
    > > that goes under the name of 'homosexuality' can be explained with
    biological
    > > patterns of value. Just as at least part of 'sexuality' IS explainable
    at
    > > the biological level, so is -I think- at least part of 'homosexuality'.
    >
    > Steve:
    > I am glad you agree that human sexuality is tied up in both social and
    > biological patterns of value.
    >
    > The politically correct position on homosexuality in the US is that sexual
    > orientation is biologically determined. It seems that this biological
    basis
    > is a deduction from the premise that one's sexual orientation does not
    seem
    > to be a choice rather than being a conclusion based on a scientific
    > discovery. I'd be interested to hear about research though.
    >
    > Sure there are some people, especially at liberal arts colleges I've
    heard,
    > who experiment with their sexuality with the idea of discovering their
    "true
    > nature" lying underneath all of their social conditioning (since SOMers
    tend
    > to think that their "true nature" is biologically-based and what's really
    > real, and their social patterns are merely a repression of this biological
    > nature). Only for some, homosexual behavior or heterosexual behavior is a
    > conscious decision (sexual behavior has an intellectual component as
    well),
    > but very few people consider their sexual orientation a choice.
    >
    > >It
    > > is obviously not the result of one gene, but of the complex interplay of
    > > genes among themselves AND with circumstances in which people (or
    animals
    > > for that matter) find themselves. This interplay permits (statistically)
    a
    > > range of outcomes and at the outer fringes of this range (as visualized
    in a
    > > Bell curve) homosexuality is a normal outcome.
    > > Genes contributing to that outcome may be genes encoding for a stronger
    > > sex-drive than usual and a circumstance enabling it may be more exposure
    to
    > > people of the same sex than to people of the other sex. Other
    combinations
    > > of genes and circumstances may have a comparable outcome.
    >
    > I agree that the biological latch aspect of sexual preference is real and
    > probably not a single gene but rather a "complex interplay of genes."
    What
    > do you imagine are the purely biological triggers of sexual urges that
    would
    > suggest preferences for maleness or femaleness? You mentioned exposure to
    > more or less people of the same sex, but how, from a strictly DNA-encoded
    > biological point of view, would we even recognize the imbalance? I
    > previously mentioned pheromones which I don't think are important for
    modern
    > humans, but I could be wrong. It's hard to imagine that we have
    hard-wired
    > sexual preferences for certain shapes of people. Even if we do, there is
    so
    > much variability in shapes and sizes of people that regardless of the
    > desired shape, there are both males and females that would fit the bill.
    >
    > My opinion is that though I have trouble thinking how it would work, I
    think
    > that somehow there is a biological latch for a tendency to favor one sex
    or
    > the other, but I don't think that there exists a biologically human animal
    > who would not display homosexual behavior had this human existed as part
    of
    > some different set of social patterns. In other words, I don't think that
    > anyone is completely biologically determined to be either homosexual or
    > heterosexual.
    >
    > I'm sure, for example, that many who may have claimed to be "All Man"
    (like
    > DMB although he never specifically used those words) have willingly
    engaged
    > in homosexual behavior after being sentenced to prison.
    >
    > I've never desired any physical contact with a male beyond a handshake,
    pat
    > on the back, scruffing of my hair when I was a kid, or a friendly hug,
    > either, but come on, DMB, if you were stranded on a desert island,
    wouldn't
    > you prefer the companionship of a Brad Pitt over some really, really,
    really
    > ugly fat old hag? I mean if you were forced to pick one of them to have
    sex
    > with, are your so sure you'd choose the hag? Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp,
    Matt
    > Damon, and, I dunno, maybe all of those young guys that are supposed to be
    > so hot, look a lot more feminine than a lot of women, right?
    >
    > As I've said before, though I put a lot of weight on social patterns in
    > explaining human sexuality (in my understanding of social patterns, they
    are
    > latched through unconscious copying of human behavior, and they are the
    only
    > way I can explain DMBs fetish for French maid costumes ;-)) doing so does
    > *not* make sexual orientation a conscious choice. Value choices occur on
    > all levels, but *conscious* decisions characterize the intellectual level
    > only.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Steve
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 23 2003 - 22:54:14 GMT