Now, I could do some research and post an answer gleaned from various feminist/activist sources, but because I’m lazy (or don’t want to spend that much time on this), I’ll just give my own take on it.

My understanding is that heterosexism is the belief, enacted through society in culture, institutions, etc., that heterosexuality is the norm and that gay and lesbian relationships, though possibly acceptable (thus distinguishing heterosexism to some degree from homophobia, which involves hatred and fear of gays), are inferior to heterosexual relationships. Or perhaps the belief that gays and lesbians are a homogenous group could be considered heterosexist.

I guess one concrete example of heterosexism that comes to mind is from the thread a little while ago (“The Abstinence Sham”) about sex education and the whole abstinence pledge thing in American schools and a survey that revealed what young people considered to be “sex.” There was the heterosexist idea that many people had of sex equaling heterosexual intercourse. Other sexual acts are not considered “real” sex.

Following from this, we can also see that heterosexism involves, yes, sexism, taking the male definition of sex as the norm. If there’s not a penis or penetration involved, it’s not “real” sex. Or just plain ignorance about women’s sexuality and what the heck do lesbians do?

It boggled my mind when one person on the “Abstinence Sham” thread referred to “vagina on vagina intimacy”. I gotta tell ya: I’ve been an out lesbian for 18 years, and I’ve never had “vagina on vagina” sex. Vulva on vulva, yeah; clit on clit, for sure. This reminds me of a cartoon I saw once of a man and woman playing Scrabble. The woman is looking pleased with herself, while the man is saying: “Clitoris?! There’s no such word as ‘clitoris’!”

I have to admit that I myself did not find out about the existence of the clitoris until I was almost 19, and then only because I started hanging out at the Women’s Centre at the university I was attending. I guess I can thank my Catholic upbringing for being so ignorant. As a recovering Catholic, I could have a lot to say about the Pope and the Catholic church and the nauseating press coverage, but I figured a lot of what I would have said was being said already in those other threads.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: hawthorn ]

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: hawthorn ]

quote:

---

It boggled my mind when one person on the “Abstinence Sham” thread referred to “vagina on vagina intimacy”.

---

I love boggling minds.

It had nothing to do with the fact that I'm a hetero male trying to account for a very odd percentage of people who believe that the traditional definition of intercourse isn't sex.

[ 07 April 2005: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by hawthorn:

My understanding is that heterosexism is the belief...that heterosexuality is the norm ...

---

I think that's all you need for a definition of heterosexism. To be a heterosexist, you don't have to believe that any other sexuality is inferior, just they are not the "norm", i.e. "normal".

quote:

---

My understanding is that heterosexism is the belief...that heterosexuality is the norm ...

---

I don't know, what heterosexism is, but regarded that without heterosexuality there would not be any homosexuality (though it may change within a few years), therefor heterosexuality IS the norm.

Though I don't see any relevance of this categorization.

quote:

---

I also subscribe to the definition of "racist" as somebody who believes that there are separate and authoritatively definable "races."

---

quote:

---

the simple fact queer/gay/whatever folk were brought into this world through heterosexual act does not make heterosexuality the norm, societally speaking

---

I did not know, that sexual orientation is a societal issue. Does this mean, that social issues made you homosexual, or that changes in the society would make a heterosexual out of you?

quote:

---

Also, there is a vast difference in attitude when someone says, in a conversation about population and statistics, "You're not in the norm for category X" or "You are part of a minority group", and someone saying that because of my minority status that I am not normal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gCato:

I did not know, that sexual orientation is a societal issue. Does this mean, that social issues made you homosexual, or that changes in the society would make a heterosexual out of you?

...

I am not the one, who used the word "normal" leaning on "norm". It is not my domain to make strong statements re the English language, but my feeling is, that "normal" has a broader meaning than something, which does not match with the norm. For example "abnormal" can characterize intellectual capability, while there is no "norm" for that.

---

I was sort of trying to make a distinction between reproduction, a biological function, and sexual orientation, which is a social thing. It doesn't mean that because I say angry or happy or painted blue people on the sidewalk when I was three that I am queer, it just means that sexual orientation isn't a biological function (although that's not to say that I'm discounting the possiblity of orientation being biologically determined). So, because I don't think that my orientation is caused by a 'social issue', I also don't think that anything within society could genuinely make me straight -make me act straight, perhaps out of fear, but not actually make me straight.

quote:

---

I was sort of trying to make a distinction between reproduction, a biological function, and sexual orientation, which is a social thing

---

Well, you can say that if you are not doing it alone, then it is a "social thing". Nevertheless, you say society does not influance your sexual orientation. Now, in my understanding, your sexual orientation would be the same, even if you did not practice it.

Consequently, sexual orientation is not a societal issue. It's acceptance or it's rejection is a societal issue, but again, your sexual orientation does not depend on these factors, does it?

quote:

---

I tend to be on the 'not normal' side more often than not. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't change that for a second, I like being unique

---

It's entirely your business, but allow me to make a remark to this.

I don't accept, that one has to deviate from the "norm" (whatever that is) in order to be unique. Everyone is unique, who is capable of making own thoughts and decisions.

I don't measure the least value to look or act differently from others. Even if everybody else would look, act or think equally to me, it would not make me less unique, because I think and act on my own, no matter what others think or how they act (where "acting" is of course severally limited do to being tightly integrated in a society).

quote:

---

My understanding is that heterosexism is the belief, enacted through society in culture, institutions, etc., that heterosexuality is the norm and that gay and lesbian relationships, though possibly acceptable (thus distinguishing heterosexism to some degree from homophobia, which involves hatred and fear of gays), are inferior to heterosexual relationships. Or perhaps the belief that gays and lesbians are a homogenous group could be considered heterosexist.

---

You are comparing apples (sexual orientation) to oranges (relationships).

Heterosexuality is the norm. The overwhelming majority of people in Canada (for the terms of our discussion) are heterosexual.

Here is a really good article about compulsory heterosexuality (aka, heterosexism)from the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered cultural encyclopedia: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/compulsory_heterosexuality.html

I would particularly like to draw attention to the following quotes:

quote:

---

Compulsory heterosexuality is the assumption that women and men are innately attracted to each other emotionally and sexually and that heterosexuality is normal and universal. This institutionalization of heterosexuality in our society leads to an institutionalized inequality of power not only between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals, but also between men and women, with far reaching consequences.

---

and also:

quote:

---

Moreover, compulsory heterosexuality routinely punishes those who do not conform to heterosexuality. Thus, same-sex relationships are made taboo and, often, criminalized, while pressure is placed on people to form heterosexual relationships and bonds. The need to enforce male-female relationships as a social norm suggests that heterosexuality may be less an innate response and more of a social conditioning.

---

quote:

---

When you say that the majority of people in Canada are straight, you are really talking about the majority of people you have met in your own (presumably) narrow existence.

---

Hmm no he prob means it in the sense that all census info, stats, studies etc, show it to be the overwhelming majority. He's not stating that makes it better, worse or any shade of judgement. Just an 'is' just like women outnumber men slightly in population.

edited to add
Not that Im presuming to speak for him or anything

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]
edited again to correct my typo as skdadl noticed

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: Bacchus ]

And hey walking downtown I saw a Hotdog cart near the Worlds biggest Bookstore and guess what it said on the side?

BWAGA

Essentially I was trying to say that assuming everyone is straight and that being straight is normal is part of the problem that creates hatred against gays and lesbians who are therefore seen as "deviant" instead of part of a natural continuum of human sexuality.

Darn typos.

[ 08 April 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

As to the norm thing, I'm trying to challenge the whole idea of there being a way to mathematically average out who is gay and who is straight. I'm proposing that the very way we construct heterosexuality is a problem. For instance, how many gay people are still closeted because of family/religious persecution? We can only measure how many people are living an overtly heterosexual lifestyle and owning up to it.

quote:

---

Well, you can say that if you are not doing it alone, then it is a "social thing". Nevertheless, you say society does not influance your sexual orientation. Now, in my understanding, your sexual orientation would be the same, even if you did not practice it.

---

While who you are attracted to/sleep with might be the same, how that act is constructed by society and what it means to belong to that group is definitely a social construct.

Concepts of homosexuality and heterosexuality and sexual orientation as identity are fairly recent, as history goes.

For instance, in the European Christian Middle Ages, having sex with someone of the same gender was considered by the church to be a sin, but not one belonging solely to a small section of humanity. It was thought to be a sin to which any man (so we can already sort of see how this one was constructed) was susceptible. It leads to some interesting things, like church leaders advocating toleration of prostitution to show young men the joys of heterosexual sex.

It is only in the latter part of the 19th century that homosexuality begins to be pathologized as an identity. (I use the term pathologized because this idea is first explored by the developing medical and psychological establishment). From then, some people who engage in same sex acts embraced the identity, subverting it and using it to fight for greater social acceptance and rights.

quote:

---

When you say that the majority of people in Canada are straight, you are really talking about the majority of people you have met in your own (presumably) narrow existence. You are also talking about the innumerable media representations of heterosexulity that we are all flooded with on a daily basis.

---

I will not comment any futher on the innate snottiness in the "your own (presumably) narrow existence" shot.

Even in Kinsey's studies, those who are identified as homosexual amount to no more than 10%. So to say that 90% of a population makes an overwhelming majority is an accurate statement and not one based on any exposure to society at all. Even if a Hutterite from an insular colony made that statement it would still be true.

The fact that at the minumum 90% of people in society form heterosexual relationships in a far greater number that they do homosexual relationships makes a heterosexual relationship the norm as well.

quote:

---

Even in Kinsey's studies, those who are identified as homosexual amount to no more than 10%. So to say that 90% of a population makes an overwhelming majority is an accurate statement and not one based on any exposure to society at all. Even if a Hutterite from an insular colony made that statement it would still be true.

[/QB]

---

Not quite true. Kinsey himself believed that human sexuality was a continuum rather than a binary. In his studies, he found that those who came up on his 7 point scale as exclusively homosexual and exclusively heterosexual were very, very small. In fact, one could also say that he found that only 10% of the population were heterosexual.

Kinsey Institute

From the website:

quote:

---

Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male).

---

and:

quote:

---

He reported that between 6 and 14% of females (ages 20-35) had more than incidental homosexual experience in their histories. (p. 488, Female).

---

quote:

---

Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives (p. 656, Male).

---

quote:

---

Kinsey estimated that nearly 46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or "reacted to" persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives

---

I ate tofu today, but that doesn't make me a vegetarian.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bacchus:
BWAGA=Babblers Who Aren't Getting Any

Skdadl is our proud treasurer and membership secretary

---

Your faithful treasurer here. But a correction is required. I am not the recording secretary. vickyinottawa used to be our recording secretary, but as seems so often to happen in this organization, she has flown the coop, it appears.

So the position of recording secretary is open, guys. Your executive is accepting applications at this very moment. Your executive is in fact begging for applications at this very moment.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, your faithful treasurer is soliciting members.

Granola Girl, if you want to pay your back dues and remain on our lists as a once-and-future BWAGAn, I can accommodate you. My favourite member, Hinterland, for instance, has paid a full ten years' back dues and then opted for our indefinite-future plan.

I can accommodate anyone, actually. I'm only in this for the munnee. A little bit the power, but mainly the munnee munnee munnee.

Aw, thanks!

quote:

---

after reading all of your posts, I have to wonder why you are at babble at all

---

Do you mean, that babble presumes certain dispositions/set of opinions (in other words, an ideology)? Which one? Where is it documented? I must have I missed it.

quote:

---

considering your offensive position on abortion, why you seem so magnetically attracted to the feminist forum?

---

1. Offensive can be seen only related to other persons (beside the one having the position). The fact, that YOU are offended by my position does not mean, that it is offensive for itself.

2. I posted it already: the subtitle of this forum states Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view. If you are only among like-minded posters, then the "discussion" deterriorates to mutual clapping on the shoulder, as it is the case on several forums of this site.

3. There IS a certain attraction: to learn, what "the other side" (I mean the wackos) think and say.

quote:

---

This institutionalization of heterosexuality in our society leads to an institutionalized inequality of power not only between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals, but also between men and women

---

Bullshitting has no upper limits.

quote:

---

Would it include "straight" girls who sometimes fantasize about their female friends or "straight" men who once had a blow-job out of curiosity? If I'm not mistaken, current queer theory contends that our sexuality can fluctuate between "gay" or "straight" and in between many times during our lives

---

There are (at least) two inherent contradictions in the argumentation of homosexuals and their advocates, when stating, that homosexuality is in their "nature" (i.e. born with, in their genes, or however).

1. They find it necessary to make their sexual orientation more acceptable/justifyable/for whatever to "prove", that a larger segment of the population is homosexual, than it is thought/believed generally. Why? Albinos are a tiny-tiny minority of the population, but they don't try to prove, that many people have red eyes.

2. If someone, who "had a blow-job out of curiosity", etc. is considered to belong to the group of homosexuals, then homosexuality can not come from the genes.

quote:

---

I was trying to say that assuming everyone is straight and that being straight is normal is part of the problem

---

1. I have not seen or heard anyone ever stating, that everybody is straight. This does not mean, that there are no such, but certainly not many.

Mysel, I get really bored reinventing the wheel every two weeks as one or another nasty Nietzsche comes to enlighten the rabble.

It would be so nice if such people would try learning, rather than dictating. And it would be nice if all their icon-smashing truths were not the same ones boringly repeated by the US neocons or their protofascist cheering squad in the media.

I don't care whether 10% of the population is largely interested in homosexual sex, or whether it's 1%. I am not the sort who likes to believe that everyone is a bit queer deep down: confused 'maybe/maybe-not' bisexuals have their own gig.

What I do care about was articulated early in this thread:

quote:

---

My understanding is that heterosexism is the belief, enacted through society in culture, institutions, etc., that heterosexuality is the norm and that gay and lesbian relationships, though possibly acceptable (thus distinguishing heterosexism to some degree from homophobia, which involves hatred and fear of gays), are inferior to heterosexual relationships

---

"It is just a question of asthetics,who do you fancy? It has fuck all to do with morality. In a thousand years there will be no girls, and no guys, just giant wankers. Sounds fucking great to me."

quote:

---

Originally posted by gCato:
Do you mind posting your findings? When I was looking for this, I found that anthropologists (or some anthropologists?) deny the existence of "race". The arguments sounded very convincing; unfortunately I have not saved the writing.

---

quote:

---

I get really bored reinventing the wheel every two weeks as one or another nasty Nietzsche comes to enlighten the rabble

---

Right, the world is already full of the ... wheels you invented already.

quote:

---

It would be so nice if such people would try learning, rather than dictating

---

I guess this intelligent writing constitutes the notes for the first lecture you gave me.

Well, I see there is much to learn here.

quote:

---

Pierre van den Berghe, Race and Racism

---

Berghe, although an anthropologist, turned the question upside down and created a sociological definition.

I don't know much about these types of politics. I don’t have time to read the whole thread on this, but I have heard the term "heterosexism" before. I assume it means the practice or belief that only heterosexual people should have rights and freedoms or opportunities, and that these should be eliminated or restricted for homosexuals or lesbians (or bi-women, etc. anyone who isn't considered a heterosexual).

It's like the loony prejudicial statements I have heard from various Conservative MPs or religious right-wing flakes about how they think it's good for bosses to have the power to fire gay people or lesbians, or that all gays are automatically child molesters, or that gay people or lesbians or bisexual people should not be allowed to become teachers or police or nurses, etc. for whatever reasons.

That’s what I think of when I hear "heterosexism."

But this idea that it means thinking that heterosexuality is the norm doesn't make sense to me--because it certainly is the norm, as in that's the way most people are.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here. I'm just trying to get an idea of why this is a bad thing. After all, there certainly didn't get to be six billion people on the planet without at least a couple million years worth of heterosexuality (there are discussions out there about whether having that many people around is a good or bad thing, but no one can deny they are there).

quote:

---

I was sort of trying to make a distinction between reproduction, a biological function, and sexual orientation, which is a social thing.

---

Hold on. This is where you folks are a-losin me. How can it be social? I have read the human beings, like most other sexually reproducing species, have an instinct to reproduce, and that’s where sex drive (or I guess at least heterosexual sex drive) comes from.

Maybe some folks have, it others don’t, or maybe it plays out in different ways in different people and some express it with the same sex. I don’t know.

I have also read, and been told by some of the feminists I have met, that among women it’s more “social” than men—in other words, that women are naturally more sexually fluid and can be sexual with both men and women.

There was an article in some magazine (People, I think—read it in a dentists’ office) that quoted a huge study (“Johnson and Masters” if memory serves) that said bisexuality is fairly common among women, where it isn’t among men. I do know it’s a common sexual fantasy for most guys and many women.

But I don’t know if all this is true, or if it is, why that necessarily makes sexual orientation a social thing. People aren’t taught to get sexually interested (at least I wasn’t); they just seem to do it naturally.

quote:

---

So, because I don't think that my orientation is caused by a 'social issue'

---

Well, as said, I’m sure no knowledgeable expert on this, but I don’t think it is either.

quote:

---

You are comparing apples (sexual orientation) to oranges (relationships).
Heterosexuality is the norm. The overwhelming majority of people in Canada (for the terms of our discussion) are heterosexual.
A heterosexual relationship is no different in concept from a homosexual one.

---

I agree with the norm part. But I would appreciate a bit more explanation of the rest.

quote:

---

BWAGA=Babblers Who Aren't Getting Any

---

This could use some explanation as well. Sounds like an established club of very unhappy people.

quote:

---

If I'm not mistaken, current queer theory contends that our sexuality can fluctuate between "gay" or "straight" and in between many times during our lives.

---

Again, I have been told this is true for women, although I’m not sure I believe it. But again, if even this is true, how do social issues influence this. Couldn’t there be biological reasons for people who do this?

quote:

---

I make no distinction between heterosexism and homophobia; the difference is irrelevant to my life.

---

I thought “homophobia” means someone having an excessive or unreasonable fear of people who are homosexual, whereas “heterosexism” is someone who opposes recognizing rights and freedoms for homosexuals.

quote:

---

Mr. gcato is certainly convinced of the value of his participation on Babble. As must happen to him often, he is in a small minority on that point.
Mysel, I get really bored reinventing the wheel every two weeks as one or another nasty Nietzsche comes to enlighten the rabble.

---

“Nasty Nietzsche!” I like that, although I think Mr. Gcato, after reading his scribes on other threads here, doesn’t even do Nietzsche justice, since his habit seems to be quoting all kinds of studies and writers as saying what he wants them to say, not what they in fact say.

Nietzsche was a rotten anti-human wart, for sure. But he certainly didn’t have this problem.

quote:

---

In a thousand years there will be no girls, and no guys, just giant wankers. Sounds fucking great to me."

---

Interesting. Sounds kind of like a lot of folks in the BC and federal Liberals and Conservatives (guess they’re ahead of the times in at least one way).

Are our sexual preferences rigid elements of our personality, and if so, are they genetic, socially determined by a certain age, or a mixture of both? If not, are some elements of our preference more rigid than others? Is it easier to expand than to shrink the range of our preferences (as I believe)? What social or psychological processes can change our preferences? If we think about how race relates to sexuality, I think it is relatively easy to argue that who we are able or tend to eroticize is heavily socially determined. It's complex of course, in that how the socialization interacts with our personal biology and character isn't a straightforward mechanism, it seems to me. But does anyone really think that people are hardwired to prefer one "race" over another? Doubtful. In my experience, it is also possible, either through unexpected sexual or romantic encounters, or through deliberate experimenting and self-training, to change how and whether one can eroticize people who are racialized differently from one's dominant preferences. But generally, I find it plausible that these preferences are in part the result of a complex interaction with socialized racism.

Continuing with this theme, I find it very difficult to eroticize transmen, and my own understanding of this is that it is a "blockage" rooted in transphobia. Personally, I am working on this, and I find that it IS possible to remove such blockages and begin to eroticize actions and people one may previously have found indifferent or even repellent.

Then there is the case of age, which, I would argue is an aspect of sexual preference we are under some amount of social pressure to change as we age...but why shouldn't this be just as immutable and rigid as other aspects of our sexual preference?

Is it obvious that erotic preference ought primarily to be categorized in terms of which sex we prefer (and furthermore that there are only two such sexes and two genders to choose from)? Athough sexuality tends to be classified (with exceptions to be sure) on the basis of preference for one of two possible sexes, I'll call this "gender fundamentalism" in respect to how we understand our sexual orientation. Myself, I find that certain "types" do it for me, and some of these may be heavily gendered (generally male), but others may cross gender and sex, and I don't find the lens of sex or gender terribly helpful in understanding this. (I don't identify as bisexual, in part because I have big trouble with the idea that there are "only two", but I find terribly offensive the idea put forth by some gays and lesbians that bisexuals are just "confused". Where does anyone get off making that determination for someone else? And why bother with it anyway?) We could also be fundamentalist about the top/bottom polarity, or about our racial preferences, or the polarities of old/young (as Thom Magister says, thank the sex gods for the daddy fetish!), chubby/skinny, poly/mono, and so on. What would that look like if we were?

Further, is it obvious that identity, as opposed to activity, is the best frame in which to understand sexuality? There may be patterns in our activity, and these may be stable for social, political, psychological, biological, or other reasons. Or they may shift. But is identity REALLY so obviously the way we should understand these? Tactically essentialist assertions of identity are useful transitional moments in movements of political liberation, and they usually arise in reaction to identity-based oppressions. In my view, the bigger project of liberation (that will liberate heterosexuals as much as homosexuals in the long run) is to challenge these notions of identity entirely.

One's dominant preferences, or the stable trend in preferences, may be somewhat transparent to oneself. But is it so transparent to us how we came to have these preferences in the first place? If not, are our unexamined preferences really the only data we should consider in devising a theory of human sexuality and sexual orientation? Put differently, is it in any way obvious that if I grew up with a society which didn't discipline and normalize certain sexual choices and behaviours in the way that this society does, that I would have the same preferences, that they would be either "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual", that we would have and use the same vocabulary to describe them?

As to the question of normality, it seems to me the confused approaches to it all start with a linkage between reproductive sexual activity and identity. Reproductive sexual activity is normal (or quite simply, reproductive sexual activity equals sexual activity tout court), it is "heterosexuality" and "heterosexual" is an identity. Therefore the heterosexual identity is normal. QED. In fact, as is increasingly well documented, all kinds of sexual activity take place among animals of almost every species. The number of "higher" animal species in which homosexual activity is observed is greater than the number in which it is not. If you start with the ideological assumption that only heterosexual intercourse has an adaptive or evolutionary function, then you build your conclusion that it is "the norm" right into your starting point, so it's not surprising that you end up there, is it?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1143549,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1026440,00.html

http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/zoology.html

quote:

---

Nowt so queer as animals by Adam Mars-Jones in The Observer Review, 25th. July, 1999, page 11. "Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it - fall for their own sex, that is."

"Bagemihl draws on, and persuasively interprets, a vast quantity of data, going back many decades. So how is it that an activity so widespread in so many species could have remained unnoticed for so long? The explanation has disturbing implications for the entire scientific method, so often announced as value-free, as if the values of the scientists making observations did not impinge on their project. The answers to the questions you ask are structured by the questions you don't think even need asking."

"There are three ways in which trained observers can overlook a widespread activity: by not seeing it; by not noticing it; by making it disappear from their results. Primary, secondary and tertiary invisibility, in descending order of defensibility."

"Homosexual behaviour can pass unnoticed if all sexual acts are posited to be heterosexual. When scientists studying a population of birds, for instance, assume that every mounter is male and every mountee female, every cranny of the habitat could be throbbing with same-sex couplings and they would be none the wiser. This lesson could have been learned long ago, on the basis of the study of a population of king penguins carried out at Edinburgh Zoo between 1915 and 1930. Genders were assigned to the birds on the basis of their first round of shenanigans. As the penguins partied on, the observers were forced to rechristen Bertha Bertrand and Andrew Ann. It turned out that only one of the birds had been correctly identified. In a wild population, the errors might never have shown up ('That looks a lot like Andrew, but ... it can't be!'). Yet sexing by behaviour is still being used in the field."

---

Sadly, the link to Adam Mars-Jones' review of Bruce Bagemihl's book on the Observer site appears to be broken. I recommend taking Bagemihl's book out of the library and reading it. It's quite enlightening.

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

http://www.q.co.za/news/1999/9912/991214-animals.htm

[ 09 April 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

quote:

---

Further, is it obvious that identity, as opposed to activity, is the best frame in which to understand sexuality? There may be patterns in our activity, and these may be stable for social, political, psychological, biological, or other reasons. Or they may shift. But is identity REALLY so obviously the way we should understand these? Tactically essentialist assertions of identity are useful transitional moments in movements of political liberation, and they usually arise in reaction to identity-based oppressions. In my view, the bigger project of liberation (that will liberate heterosexuals as much as homosexuals in the long run) is to challenge these notions of identity entirely.

One's dominant preferences, or the stable trend in preferences, may be somewhat transparent to oneself. But is it so transparent to us how we came to have these preferences in the first place? If not, are our unexamined preferences really the only data we should consider in devising a theory of human sexuality and sexual orientation? Put differently, is it in any way obvious that if I grew up with a society which didn't discipline and normalize certain sexual choices and behaviours in the way that this society does, that I would have the same preferences, that they would be either "gay" or "straight" or "bisexual", that we would have and use the same vocabulary to describe them?

---

rasmus, I give you full licence to consider what follows "the wimpy response," since in philosophical terms I follow what you say and agree with it, and yet find myself experiencing political and psychological resistance to it.

My resistance probably boils down to a mention of one banal factor you have not mentioned in your questioning of identity: security, and by that I mean psychological security, not material (although who can pretend that that doesn't matter too).

When I think of my own "preferences," I have often thought, as you do above, that I am responding to some other typology than the standard categories, and I have further been struck by how unpredictable TO ME my responses have been, and yet how powerful.

But given my louche and lazy personality, I have tended to think, first, that the sources of that/those typology/ies are buried so far back in my pre-rational days as to be forever irretrievable; and second, that a programmatic attempt to change them in adulthood, if virtuous and wise on some fronts, might be psychologically unrealistic imposed on myself and would be horribly tyrannical imposed on / required of anyone else.

Again, the louche and lazy personality has been astounded enough to keep meeting new individuals who turn out to be surprisingly preferred, if I can put it that way -- I mean, from that point of view, there has been no lack of psychological exercise.

But the will to indulge and forgive those immediate visceral responses of my own -- that I have wanted to protect, and I would worry that an analysis like yours might tempt people to ... something else.

In other words, I guess, I am close to equating psychological security with liberty (my very highest value). I always start to feel a bit twitchy when progressive thought moves towards thought experiments, or any kind of thought moves towards mind control.

Many people find psychological security in identity -- I guess I'm just claiming to find it in self-indulgence, but I do, and I feel fearful when under pressure to spiff myself up philosophically. Does that make any sense to you?

That being said, some people will be more conservative than others. A related example: I have more than one friend who desperately needs to believe in things in order to give some definite structure to the world, and to her self-understanding. Many people are like this, and what they believe in can be quite varied -- religion, political ideology, scientism, biological psychiatry. Having explanations available seems to help. I'm not like that. But that doesn't mean that it would be good if everyone was like me. Some tension between experimentation and stability is probably necessary for the well being of the whole.

But let's go to 19th century senses of "identity" around gender roles, sexual relations and racial characteristics -- undoubtedly these also provided a sense of comfort and security, perhaps even to many of those oppressed by them. Thank God a critical mass of people were able to transgress against them! Perhaps not as a result of conscious decision. But sometimes, yes. Can social change happen without a seed of radicalism (which in retrospect often looks not radical, but like common sense)?

A brief excerpt from "The Invention of Heterosexuality"

The unnatural history of heterosexuality

[ 11 April 2005: Message edited by: rasmus raven ]

[ 10 April 2005: Message edited by: Insurrection ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

Heterosexuality is the norm. The overwhelming majority of people in Canada (for the terms of our discussion) are heterosexual.

---

By that definition, "white" is normal in Canada, "non-white" is abnormal. I think you can see the point: By ascribing "normal" status to a group, you privilege it. All "abnormals" become outsiders, lessers, freaks. Abnormals are that much easier to discount, write off, and justify oppression against.

A normal/abnromal dichotomy is oppressive unto itself.

quote:

---

A heterosexual relationship is no different in concept from a homosexual one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You're confusing "norm" with "normal". A "norm" is akin to the middle of the bell curve, and does not imply any "abnormality".

In tigers, orange and black stripes are "the norm". White is not (it's rare), so it's not the norm. This does not mean that a white tiger is abnormal... just uncommon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You're confusing "norm" with "normal". A "norm" is akin to the middle of the bell curve, and does not imply any "abnormality".

...

---

quote:

---

do you not believe that statistics can be, and are, used to construct "normality" in the sense of "acceptability" (or whatever other sense you think "normal" really means).

---

In a sense, yes, but not because of language or the choice of it.

I do think that we tend to regard whatever there's the most of as "the norm", and anything that falls outside of that as the exception. For example, 5-6 foot tall men are "the norm", and a 7 foot tall man or a 4 foot tall man would be an exception. Whether or not we'd call either of them "abnormal" isn't decided solely by their exclusion from "the norm", and more to do with how we feel about that.

As an example: neither a 30" bustline nor a 46" bustline is liable to be "the norm" for women, but which do you think we'd be most likely to label "abnormal", if either?

Similarly a man who cannot run is not the norm, nor is a man who can run the 100m in 7 seconds. Who do you think would be labelled "abnormal", if either?

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasmus raven:
Hm. Well right now I think of two ways to approach this question. There's the sort of Foucaultian approach exemplified by Jonathan Katz in his "The Invention of Heterosexuality", which traces the origin of heterosexuality as an available identity. In other words, to look past our current paradigm to a previous one which DIDN'T frame sexual activity and preferences in terms of identity. This, surely, has a deconstructive effect that exposes the contingency of contemporary notions of identity?

---

This might be the only one of your points I would want to see qualified in some ways, rasmus. From my reading, anyway, it seems easier to see "homosexuality" as a quite aggressive social construct (among those who would suppress very particular expressions of it, whatever it is) in the C19, somewhat harder to see "woman" that way, although maybe the bourgeois "feminine" would be the match. It's true that women weren't hobbled by femininity in quite the same way before the late C18, although they were definitely usually hobbled by some category of the female projected on to them.

quote:

---

But let's go to 19th century senses of "identity" around gender roles, sexual relations and racial characteristics -- undoubtedly these also provided a sense of comfort and security, perhaps even to many of those oppressed by them. Thank God a critical mass of people were able to transgress against them! Perhaps not as a result of conscious decision. But sometimes, yes. Can social change happen without a seed of radicalism (which in retrospect often looks not radical, but like common sense)?

---

I definitely think that it is important to pursue your arguments on grounds of class, race, and sexism (ie: discrimination), against any taxonomy that is poisoning our public and social lives. Somewhere in my mind, I am convinced that all taxonomies are imaginary, which is what sometimes makes some of them fun (although I don't mean race and class), as long as one knows that first and then keeps remembering it.

But the more personal or intimate the challenges get, the more nervous I get, and not just for myself.

There's also, of course, the simple political problem of privilege, and your example of Kinsey is a good illustration. All praise to him, of course, but pondering -- and sometimes living, apparently -- the way that he did would presumably have been considerably easier for him than for many other people who might have been able to think along with him except for being more vulnerable (and here I'm obviously thinking first of women).

In other words, I'm sure that you are right, rasmus, in very broad terms. But I have only one life to live, and the die is cast.

Not trying to be offensive or anything, but after checking out some of the links here, and doing some digging on my own, this subject seems to have a lot of bizarre qualities. This definitely would not be recommended reading for most folks I know.

As said before, I’m no expert on this sort of stuff, and lack the background that others here obviously have. So I’m not sure if what I have to report from my brief research will be of much use to folks here.

BTW, after reading her stuff, I think folks here should try telling skdadl that her personality appears to be anything but “louche and lazy.” You obviously got a lot to say on this, ma’am. SO say it. I for one, am a-lissnen!

I actually had a discussion on this topic with my wife and a couple friends yesterday after I read this. She said an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show (I can’t stand it, but she insists it has some redeeming qualities) featured a US government census report showing that about 37 per cent of US women, and 49 per cent of US college women, have had some form of sexual encounter with another women at least once by the age of 40.

Now I had always figured, and had been told by others, that women were more “fluid” that way than men. But that seemed a bit high. One of her friends also mentioned something about a “Kinsey” report (which until last night I thought was strictly the name of a 1970s blues band) that claimed a majority of people was to one degree or another bi-sexual. That didn’t seem right to me either. Then when I checked out the Kinsey link here, I found some of its findings hard to believe as well.

SO my wife and I hit the good ol web. While we didn’t find the reports in question, we did find several different things related to both in various reports on various sites, as well as some unveiling stuff I hadn’t heard of.

Several sites have disputed the numbers of the first Kinsey reports, especially on the numbers of male homosexuals, saying that the methodology was wrong, since they were targeted toward groups that were more likely to be gay, since, in those days, it was almost impossible to get most folks to even talk about sexual orientation, let alone participate in a study.

http://www.google.com/u/bellarmine?q
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

Apparently, more recent studies by the Kinsey Institute have adjusted their numbers downward, and that’s where the “ten per cent” rule comes from (supposedly 10 per cent of men are homosexual)

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/
http://www.indiana.edu/~kinsey/services/

What’s really interesting is that about 12 years ago a research team found that the sex center of the brain of homosexual males is enlarged and a different shape than those of heterosexuals and that it contains certain hormonal differences as well (no such differences were found among women), referred to here:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1041101/

This has led to the idea that male homosexuality or bisexuality is caused by some sort hormonal quirk, and that it is fundamentally different than lesbianism. Strangely enough, apparently many gay activists endorse this idea, even though it could mean their sexuality is the result of a biological defect. They apparently argue this supposedly means a legitimate biological basis for gays since male homosexuality is predetermined naturally to exist in a certain minority percentage of the population.

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/archive/
http://bespin.stwing.upenn.edu/~upsych/Perspectives/1998/franklin1.html
http://www.nathanielwandering.net/

Even some religious folks support this idea:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/

that male homosexuality has biological roots, whereas lesbianism is a “social phenomenon”

http://www.isteve.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~gingerly/

This is then related to a huge battle between various scientists, gay rights activists, feminists and psychiatrists over the supposed existence of a “gay gene” (never even knew this was possible):

http://members.aol.com/gaygene/
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/mental.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/

But then the religious right disputes this, claiming that both male homosexuality and lesbianism are the result of bad influences, like the “liberal” (that’s a laugh) media, childhood trauma and poor parental bonding. So, they say, it’s a lifestyle choice (and a sin in their view and therefore worthy of persecution)

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/three.php
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=RESEARCH

Obviously, there’s no shortage of “authoritative opinion” on this. And, of course, the right wing still seems to be looking for excuses to take away people’s rights and freedoms.

But, as far as I’m concerned, in my humble working class socialistic ignorance, I still don’t see anything in all of this that even remotely warrants the suppression of basic democratic rights for gay people or lesbians.

It doesn’t matter if male homosexuality is the result of biological defects, “gay genes” or whatever, or that lesbianism is a social phenomenon (whatever that means). There’s still no reason what so ever to justify suppressing people’s rights and freedoms, including that SSM bill.

For a bit there, you made me feel like arguing, but then I got overwhelmed. I bet rasmus is gonna argue, though.

For me on this topic, as on many others, history counts a lot more than do "scientific" claims that I think rest on suspect "science." I like real science, but I am also convinced that science is more vulnerable than almost any other field at the moment to political or just plain quirky claims, and it always needs the correction of historical perspective.

A loose historical detail: love between men and boys was a distinguishing feature of Byzantine culture and then its Islamic inheritors, as it had been of classical Greece, so one is puzzled at the demonization of homosexuality in modern Islam.

When I say that history is a corrective, I just mean: What have people, ordinary people, always done, whatever the reigning ideology? As in: women have always sought abortions, even at the risk of their own lives, which is my most basic justification of abortion. I think that sexuality works in much the same way, in the aggregate. What we know of that, in the aggregate, is, well, whatever floats your boat.

quote:

---

For a bit there, you made me feel like arguing, but then I got overwhelmed. I bet rasmus is gonna argue, though.

---

Considering that you seem to argue quite well, I think it's the loss of everyone here that you decided not to.

I just hope that you or rasmus don't pick me to argue with, since it will be pretty much a one-way conversation. After going through all this stuff, I don't know what to think. It's all a big fog.

quote:

---

ER, you made me laugh.

---