Straights Coming Out
What else should I be?
All apologies.
What else could I say?
Everyone is gay
Kurt Cobain
Rarely does anyone emphasize their non-membership within an ethnic minority when defending said group's civil rights, yet it seems a few appear to feel the need to remove any doubts about their one hundred percent sterling heterosexuality before advocating for the rights of gays. Many are so eager to point out bigotry that led to the passing of Proposition 8, and yet they betray a necessity to assert their unequivocal straightness while doing so, lest the audience may inconveniently misconstrue, or perhaps to emphasize the extent to which their advocacy is untainted by personal stakes in the discussion of the rights of what we view as a straight majority and a gay minority.
However, such a demographic breakdown seems at odds with the Kinsey scale.
If the Kinsey scale (and therefore our sociology and anthropology courses taught in college) is to be believed, Keith Olberman, when he professes not to be gay as he passionately defends gay rights, is the exception rather than the norm. As the scale reveals, the proclivities of an overwhelming percentage of our population can be categorized as ambisexual behavior. Strictly straight and strictly gay are anomalous extremes in the spectrum. Instead, the reality is that most people live in a sexually ambiguous world modulated by social norms with strong rewards and vicious punishments which ensure adherence. Most people who claim to be straight to a certain extent do so because their intrinsic nature has subdued itself for the sake of conformity, and this majority do not understand the extreme straight or gay. In their choice for conformity, they suspect that everyone chooses.
I, for one, am inclined to believe that a person who rates naught on the Kinsey scale, as Olbermann claims for himself, and is truly one hundred percent heterosexual in his or her yearnings is also more likely to be more understanding of someone at the opposite extreme who is purely homosexual and incapable of being otherwise. I suspect the bigotry of the majority, which is commonly justified by accusations of homosexuality being a choice, is more likely to be advanced by those belonging to the bisexual majority in the center who successfully conform. In fact, it is advanced even by many who are unsuccessful at conforming, such as Sen. Larry Craig and Rev. Haggard and the countless other closeted gay or bisexual conservatives who are ambisexual enough to fool their spouses and the world for a while, but who eventually cannot maintain the charade forever.
The more oppressive the social environment, the greater the extent of the charade. It leads to deceit to spouses, risky casual sexual behavior, and gross hypocrisy and injustice by the majority against a minority. Oscar Wilde's conviction so angered some observers that they demanded in a published letter, "Why does not the Crown prosecute every boy at a public or private school or half the men in the universities?" Discriminatory initiatives are enthusiastically voted for by members of the ambisexual majorities who, given the right environment, will succumb to the "boys will be boys" or "low down" behavior, but who will not tolerate the lifestyle of those for whom homosexuality is not a choice. The truly straight are then left scratching their heads.
I'm 100% heterosexual, but I totally agree. Did I mention that I'm not gay?
November 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto, but some of my best friends...
November 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think 110% is the standard disclaimer these days, Bunny.
November 16, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the Energizer Bunny got 130% or more.
November 16, 2008 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this. Good questions, although as time goes by and we pick up some data like experiential learning combined with genetic predisposition we will have to adjust the Kinsey scale, which is conveniently straight-line (no pun intended).
A suggestion I read (in a book about memes) is that in times of disapproval and pressure to marry, any genetic component will be reproduced, leading to more gay-leaning people, leading to more acceptance, leading to less reproduction, thus there might be a cyclic aspect within the other dynamics. The point was the interaction of ideas (culture) and genes, but it's ironic that the suppression of gay behavior could lead to more gay people.
This of course is not valid if the conservative argument about choice holds. But that position seems unbelievable on its face, since, in places where the practices are hugely illegal, people are still caught doing it. Why make that choice? Is gay sex way better than the hetero kind? Like heroin or something?
And I expect a paradoxical court case to finally quash any simplistic man/woman identifying, when a trans couple tries to marry. Say one is in transition, but won't risk completion without insurance benefits, so hopes to marry first. Is the person going to meet the legal definition? If the definition then gets adjusted to be genes, or intent, or history, some case will contradict that definition. And, if definitions try to incorporate the procreation aspect, many sterile or convenience marriages become invalid.
November 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As for the genetic predisposition, a gene has been identified in male fruit flies with two variants. One variant leads to bisexual behavior (i.e., indiscriminate mating) and another variant leads to homosexual behavior. Unfortunately, the fruit flies lack opposable thumbs and hence were unable to fill out the questionnaire regarding how their life experiences affected their sexuality.
In all seriousness, I'm not claiming it's that simple with humans, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kinsey's scale really breaks down into those same 3 genetic predispositions combined with a continuum of experiential influences that give an appearance of other variations.
Going along with AdAbsurdum's point, I suspect that those arguing the loudest that homosexuality is a choice have a genetic predisposition to be bisexual (or to be homosexual and fight very hard against it).
November 15, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
And those arguing loudest against war are really all closet Huns, Vandals and Visigoths?
Way too generalized a theory. The issue with Oscar Wilde was not that it was such an oppressive environment - it was well assumed that pederasty and wide-spread gay culture existed within the upper class, boarding schools and such that the shock was about 1 person being picked out for prosecution. If you note the Wiki article, things were loose enough for upper class gays to be considering legislative reforms for gay rights, something that would have been unthinkable in a deeply repressed society.
November 16, 2008 3:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were almost as "loose" as the Republican congressional caucus.
November 16, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the analogy would be those who rail loudest against war are those who are capable of choosing peace (as opposed to just being a pacifist by genetics).
My point, possibly made inarticulately, is that it might seem natural to believe that homosexuality is a choice if you have "chosen" to be a heterosexual. That category includes those who can easily choose either preference (genetically bisexual) and those who have a predisposition to the same sex, but who have "successfully" fought that predisposition.
There is another group that would rail about homosexuality being a choice: stupid genetic heterosexuals who never stopped to think about how hard it would be for them to choose to be anything other than heterosexual.
So, I'll expand my original assertion that those who rail that homosexuality is a choice are bisexual or homosexual to include the possibility that they're just stupid. Or both. ;)
November 16, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if I were to contend that humans choose their sexuality within their first 3 months of life based on nurturing and environmental factors? So there, it's not God, it's not nature, it's zoning laws and Monday Night Football that make us what we are.
November 16, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, granted I'm pulling some of this out of my arse, but it is at least based on fruit fly studies that show those genetic factors exist. (Using fruit flies to study human behavior might seem counter-intuitive, but it actually has a fairly respected track record.)
I am aware of no studies tying human sexuality to Monday Night Football. Granted, that might be in part due to the fact that the type of people who conduct such studies aren't necessarily aware of Monday Night Football. ;)
On the flip side, there are some studies that have also connected human sexuality with environmental factors in the womb. As I said initially, I have no doubt that humans are more complicated than fruit flies (even governors of Alaska), but I also have little doubt that there are genetic factors to human sexuality, including a genetic factor to be ambisexual. My point is that those with such a factor would presumably (here's that arse-pulling bit) be more predisposed to believe that sexual preferences are a choice, as presumably you agree with me that humans display an enormous predilection towards egocentrism, right?
November 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting idea but other than the science and behavior study mentioned... I only have my personal experience. I am clearly straight even though I have often wondered if my life would not be much easier if I weren't.
I have had beautiful women in love with me. I tried exploring the possibility that I oculd be bisexual or gay... but it's not a choice... I am wired to be a straight women.
In that vein please consider that some people qualifying themselves as 'straight' when talking about their perspectives on these and related issues are not necessarily doing so from a position of defense but a qualification from where they speak.
November 16, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay it's 4am and my spelling has failed!
November 16, 2008 5:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You advance an interesting thesis and I think you may be on target. Those who have to work hardest to be "unaware" of their potential for attraction to their own sex may well be the ones who are most homophobic. It certainly fits with psychodynamics. And it also fits with what I've seen in bi-sexual people, who have felt pulled by their gay or lesbian brethren to declare themselves homosexual. I've noticed that by and large they eventually capitulate to such pressure. Which is sad, if the whole idea is to let people express (and describe) themselves as they honestly it from within.
November 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fruit flies not withstanding, there has been no single gene identified as a homosexual gene in humans. May be a combination of genes? Those who rant about homosexuals having made a choice and those who do not believe that are just as ignorant as fruit flies. There is no simple answer. Maybe we should all shut up and accept homosexuality as it is, a variation on a theme. And those who steadfastly maintain they are not homosexuals but root for homosexual causes are curious and perhaps the reasons they do have nothing to do with sexuality.
April 7, 2009 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink