December 19, 2007
-
Sexual Orientation and Human Emotional Need
My wife and I have acted together as sex & relationship counselors in the distant past so I have a little familiarity (not expertise) on this subject.
I have always been at least slightly suspicious of definitions of homosexuality. I think there is a lot of historic and psychological evidence that homosexual behavior is basically learned rather than innate. A simple historic example of this is the juxtaposition of the Hebrew culture along side the ancient Greek culture - the one exclusively hetro and the other widely homo - side by side at the same historic time. I remain unconvinced that if homosexual behavior was caused by genes, such could be the case.
But that's neither here nor there in the practical scheme of things.
I think people look for relationships for emotional reasons - we seem to have an inborn drive to need some kind of companionship, love, and approval quite separate from any biological drive. I think however we meet those needs, as long as they do not harm others, is normal and acceptable. If you, for example, meet and become friends with any other individual and if this friendship grows into true affection and you meet each others need for emotional completeness, that is a very desirable goal. The sex of your partner is really immaterial but there are advantages to having a different-sex partner because then biology adds to the enjoyment.
Unfortunately to many relationships are developed the other way round - biological lust overcoming emotional good sense and many marriages and relationships have foundered horribly when the partners discovered that they didn't really have much in common or even like each other.
In short: look for a like-minded friend first and get into romance later
Comments (16)
And now for something completely different....
I'm linked
Heheh - this topic looks familiar.
I'm not sure that the gender of the partner is immaterial any more than is the age, religion, or race - or even weight and appearance. There are interracial, interfaith, and may-december romances, of course, but they're not that common. Society and personal taste both add influence in choosing a partner.
There also is the issue of sexual attraction. While very few couples keep things spicy beyond the first few years, some sexual attraction is generally needed for a marriage - there just aren't that many asexual matrimonies. The importance of the attraction factor varies from person to person. For me, gender wouldn't be all that important for falling and staying in love - but for making teh bang-bangz, physical attributes do come into play, and sex is a part of marriage. Couples do get older and fatter and less hot and bothered over time, and the emotional relationship is ultimately the most important - but starting a marriage devoid of sexual interest doesn't seem like a good idea.
RYC, The untouchables were treated horribly, but their oppression was generally confined to India. Similarly, other minorities have been hated, abused, and targeted for annihilation before, but as a general rule, the conflict was confined to a given area. The Jews are a uniquely mobile people though, rivaled perhaps only by the Roma in mobility, refusal to assimilate, and received hatred all over the world. Anti-semitism is a global phenomenon. Not that many people worldwide hate the Hutus or the Untouchables or the Turks. The Armenians have had a very rough go of it, but outside of a certain area, even they're not hated by many people. The Roma and the Jews, however, have gotten it all over the globe. Both groups have all of the elements of a good target, although Jews have perhaps stood out a bit more, possibly due to slightly larger population, or to the more direct antagonism with Islam and Christianity.
Christian Zionism seems to play a significant role in American knowledge of and interest in mideast politics. The role of Christian Zionism in America of late is interesting, but it is primarily a product of the Evangelical movement - more liberal denominations haven't jumped on board, and some have actually taken sanctions against Israel. America does love an underdog, but barring getting a particularly lazy and unscrupulous rabbi, zionism in and of itself is not enough to get a rabbi to perform conversion. Even the most Reform of the Reform rabbis I know would balk at that one.
Feeling like an underdog is also something that is easily done in America without any involvement from Israel or Judaism. Christianity has always convinced its followers that they are victims struggling against the world, even in areas where Christianity dominates. Why go through a bris and give up your bacon and your Christmas presents for something you already get from the church?
I do worry about the American religion-of-the-month-ism. I really don't want to see this become an American fad - you can't really do much more of an insult to any religious system than to make it a pop culture phase.
Dick, thanks for commenting again.
As you can check, I made an easy experiment on my blog over here, and it looks like one doesn't need to be a Blogger subscriber to comment a Blogger blog, so there's no impediments for a Xangan to freely comment my blog. Infact any comment on my blog will be welcome.
If you'd like to link my address to your site or to SC, feel free to do it (and sorry if i linked yours in mine without asking, i hope it's not a problem!), nevertheless i don't think i will be an active participant to the discussions over there anymore, mainly for two reasons:
1 - I don't have a lot of time to spend in difficult discussions, and i don't like to keep myself on the surface when the subjects are deep.
2 - I like to drive myself the flow of the discussions and their subjects, to start a new subject when i feel like an old one is exhousted and when i have time to, and to choose whichever subject i like although it cannot properly apply to a philosophical ring at all.
So, everybody, feel free to participate to my discussions if you ever have something to say. Keep away if you want to offend, to spam, to promote any commercial thing. In these cases you will be deleted. Obviously i am the sole judge about what can offend, what is spam and in which way something is commercial. At the end it is MY blog (sounds like a dictature eh?).
I've always felt that one's sexual orientation is a combination of biology and environment, and that there's a sliding scale on how strongly one can be influenced by their environment. For instance, someone might be born with a 99% biologic predisposition to be homosexual, in which case their environment would be highly unlikely to sway their feelings. Another, however, might be born closer to the 50-50 range, and if raised in a culture and society that despises homosexuality, would likely be influenced by such feelings to choose a heterosexual relationship.
Regarding the juxtaposition of various cultures at the same point in time, I don't think it's fair to assume that differing levels of homosexuality and tolerance thereof means that such a sexual orientation is by default an environmental factor, at least on the personal level. In the Hebrew culture, for instance, homosexuality has long been despised and derided as evil and immoral, so even someone with a pure preference for relationships of the same gender would be under horribly strong pressure to ignore and deny those feelings. The fact that he or she marries into a heterosexual relationship does not necessarily mean that they are not gay, just that they perhaps felt unable to pursue their true desires. Comparing this with a culture like the ancient Greeks, in which homosexuality was more widely accepted by society, is not an "apples to apples" comparison, since homosexuals there would have felt more comfortable acting on their feelings, leading to a higher percentage of homosexually active citizens.
I need to do the research to find these particular studies again, since I'm not 100% certain that they're accurate and/or accepted in the scientific community, but I seem to remember a few years back hearing about studies done on a variety of biological and adopted siblings and comparable rates of homosexuality. If I remember correctly, the study showed that closer genetic matches had higher percentages of shared sexual orientation. For instance, with maternal twins, who share much more genetic material than fraternal twins or siblings, if one twin is gay, the percentage of times the other twin is also gay is much higher than for other siblings, even if the twins were separated and raised by different families.
Anyway, interesting post.
Why do you suppose there has been such a homophobic attitude in western culture? Do you think attitudes are changing? Why?
Re: Should the government be protected from religious influence as well as religious sects be protected from government influence?
I'd argue absolutely yes. My position is firmly that the government should be secular, but that it should not attempt to impose secularism on the populace. To protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of creed, the government should be completely neutral on religion. While it's virtually impossible for individual people to do this, I don't see why an institution couldn't. My company is religiously neutral - my coworkers are not.
Why do you suppose there has been such a homophobic attitude in western culture? Do you think attitudes are changing? Why?
Western social and sexual mores are shaped around Christianity, which has a nasty history of homophobia. Unfortunately, the Christians got if from the Jews, and so did the Muslims. Not one of the finer contributions of Judaism to society, I'll admit. Gays also make a good scapegoat. It became non-kosher to be an anti-semite after WWII, and racism became less en vogue after the civil rights movement. Feminism hasn't totally defeated sexism, but it has been decreased substantially. Homophobia has increased as our other scapegoats have stopped being suitable targets, but preachers and politicians have continued to need a villain to energize the masses. Enter the gays.
Are attitudes changing? Yeah, slowly. I remember how different things were in the early 90's from today. I can only hope that in 10 or 20 years, things are a lot better. The attitudes are changing because GLBT people have our own civil rights movement, and we've been working at integration and equality in the same way that others before us have. I imagine we'll know GLBT people have become mainstreamed when some other group finds its way to the center of the social crosshairs.
I'm still open on this issue. I used to think it was just a choice, as many religious organizations would have us believe. Now I'm not so sure. They say that science has not found a "sex gene." So what? That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. But even if no such gene exists, it is a fact that sex chromosomes exist, and it is a known that there are many different kinds of pairings other than XX and XY. Who among us then can say with certainty how an individual will respond to environmental conditions if their chromosome structure were XXY or XXX or YYX or any one of a number of other configurations.
Given that some 16 different parings have been identified, I have to stop and take a deep breath and wonder what is going on here. Surely it is something we don't completely understand, for no one in their right mind would simply decide to be gay for the fun of it, or so they can be discriminated against, made fun of, be beaten or killed, and perhaps lose their family and friends. Not when life can be so much easier by deciding to be straight. The choice idea just doesn't feel right.
One seldom-discussed question is the relationship between need for an emotional outlet and emotional security. Pre-pubescent children generally get this from their family and their playmates - remember with older children, playmates are most often of the same sex and most children find the transition to adolescence very stressful. If they want to remain in a secure childish state, have no good role model for heterosexual behavior, or find themselves intolerably insecure with the opposite sex; some of them do make a sort of unconscious decision to turn to the secure world of childhood homosexuality. Sometimes they are actually pushed to make this kind of decision by bullying classmates who use a scapegoat to master their own insecurity.
Sometimes physical appearance plays a part just as sometimes a parent may unwittingly steer their child to seek emotional security in a style the parent might abhor.
Just as a child might misbehave because that's the only time anyone pays him any attention, or be made to feel so guilty that she thinks she deserves punishment, so the classic "Domineering Mother" might create a person with skewed sexual orientation
The idea that a homosexual person has made a conscious decision to embrace this lifestyle is very seldom true in our culture unless the person sees this lifestyle as the best way to fill his/her emotional needs and sex drive.
There have been many studies of homosexuality in Prisons. It is very common but those inmates who engage almost always deny that they are Gay and upon release, few continue the practice.
While the sex drive is an undoubted biological urge - and a pretty powerful one - how it is expressed is very much learned behavior
Remember, Kinsey described sexual orientation, he did not try to explain it.
RYC, thanks, but the decision to help this woman isn't out of any particular goodness in my own character. I've experienced poverty before. I know what it's like. When I'm confronted with someone else in that situation, I want to help, because this stirs up my own experience. I never experienced malnutrition, but I've gone to bed hungry quite a few times. I know what it's like to try to sleep through hunger pangs - and the thought of it happening to the lady down the street isn't one I can tolerate.
If I had the time and the energy, this is something I'd really love to write about - how ethics are so often brought about through suffering. I am not an especially good person. I've just been cold and hungry before. Most of the people whom I've seen heavily involved in helping others have themselves experienced tragedy. We often learn humility through powerlessness, empathy through pain, and reciprocity through hardship. That being said - I know people who have the optimism to try to take on the world's problems, whereas I'm more pessimistic about world hunger, but willing to buy groceries for someone down the street. There's an irrational hope that some people have that lets them take on problems that they can't possibly conquer, and to do some measure of good in the world in the meantime. The people who have this are much better people than I.
There's probably a pretty decent schpiel about suffering, morality, human nature, hope, and personal responsibility for changing the world lurking in there somewhere.
The relationship of Ethics and Suffering would be a good Socratic Discussion, I think.
Do you think suffering improves a person? How?
RYC, we have an eruv in Atlanta, but it's not in my neighborhood. We also have kosher inspection here - the Atlanta Kashrut Commission is pretty well known. Go to Dunwoody or Toco Hills, and there are a lot of resturaunts certified by them. There are a couple of Orthodox areas that are situated near the major shuls, some Jewish community centers, kosher groceries and dining, and everything else to make the frummers comfortable. And if you happen to be one of the folks who can afford to live in those areas, it's pretty convenient. I'm not.
Thankfully, I'm not Orthodox, but Conservative. I don't get any grief for riding the bus to shul on Shabbat. My shul is also egalitarian - something not without controversy, even in American Conservative Judaism. I did opt to go with a Conservative rabbi instead of Reform. While I agree with the Reform on 99% of things, halacha is a sticking point. I see it as binding - part of the contract. The Reform do not. I know some Reform Jews who keep kosher, and it is encouraged at The Temple in this city, but it's definitely not predominant. As far as my Orthodox neighbor is concerned, I don't keep kosher. Masortim accept some hecshers that the Orthodox don't. That's why I get to eat good stuff from India, and frozen vegetarian meals, when the Orthodox lady in my complex has to make everything by hand - including bread.
In the last few years, the numbers of Jews in the US and in Israel has roughly hit a tie. The leader fluctuates from time to time, and the numbers are debated, but the diaspora still far outnumbers the Israelis. Historically, most of the people using the law of return in Israel have been European - but in recent years the number of new applicants has dropped sharply. Frankly, it's safer to be a Jew in Europe than in Israel now. Israel has lost some appeal.
Happy new year to you and your wife hope it brings lots of good health!
Happy New Year.
RYC, While Judaism and Islam both have dress codes for men, you're right. I did notice that the modesty idea applies mostly to women. (Sikhs, I think, require modesty, but are a bit more equal in standards.)
A case can definitely be made for covering as anti feminist. In the context of the development of the idea of women as property, a woman visually signaling sexual unavailability except to her husband makes sense. And in that context, a woman covering could definitely be described as signaling visually that she is property.
On the other hand, I stumbled across a photo of a woman in a burqa holding a sign that said "the veil is womens liberation." She actually makes a point. While rejecting the idea of modesty would seem to reject the idea of sexual control over women, it really doesn't. Baring it all has created a social climate that encourages the sexual objectification of women. Women are judged as human beings by aesthetic standards - with the women who look best in a miniskirt given decidedly preferential treatment. In that climate, women are both applauded and debased by demonstration of general sexual availability. Does the miniskirt really say "I'm in control of my sexuality" - or does it really just say "look at my body and approve of me"?
Whereas just a few decades ago, wearing miniskirts and burning bras were the symbols of womens liberation, now covering up and seeking not to be objectified is the feminist bulwark. Feminism itself seems to be caught in a lose-lose situation on this front.
The problem is that feminism and religion both are seeking to combat an element of human nature. Heterosexual men are always going to be attracted to pretty women. Being attracted to someone as physically beautiful does not include consideration of said person's intellect or personality - it amounts to looking at someone and going "ooooh - shiny." But that is an element of human attraction that cannot be turned off - except possibly in the blind.
There is an erotic element of mystery. I'll admit that I often find women who cover to be exotic and beautiful - and I can only imagine that there are men who feel the same way. Perhaps the act of covering is not itself an act of anti-eroticism, but more a game of playing hard to get.
I always thought the major goal of Feminism was absolute gender equality. Gender-based restrictions on dress, behavior and property ownership are certainly anti-feminist. That person in the burka was just making the best of her very bad lot.
I don't think a male's attitude toward females is very much influenced by their dress, nor, for that matter,is the reverse true.
Hey! maybe we have a Socrates_cafe topic here
I don’t know if I had any fears entering college. I guess the hardest thing was losing my support team from The Children’s Institute. I was there for sixteen years and everyone knew me. I went from that to college where no one knew me. I have had to teach professors how I communicate and such. The word “fear” isn’t a big part of my life. I have always had the attitude that if it is possible for me to do, I will make it happen!
Obwohl es brennen ein wenig, ist der Knoblauch eine ganz fantastisch antiseptisch.
Eines der mächtigsten Hefebehandlungen ist Knoblauch als Zäpfchen verwendet
werden. Das ist eine bakterielle Vaginose Heilmittel.