Does homosexuality objectively exist?

In recent years there has been a shift in western society to, for the most part, recognize that there are people who are healthy, normal members of society and also engage in homosexual relationships. These people are generally described as being homosexuals; their desire for a same sex relationships unifies them into one group.

Science has accepted that homosexuality exists and that it appears to be something biological rather than socially constructed. They've gone hunting for a "gay" gene or hormonal fluctuations in the womb that could trigger it.

Homosexual behavior has likely existed in humanity since before we had language. Some of our closest relations, the bonobos, regularly engage in same sex contact. In fact, the animal kingdom is full of homosexual behavior. Giraffes are noted as being "notoriously gay" by zoologists.

But, wait. There's a fallacy that's occurred somewhere here. Homosexual behavior may occur naturally, and homosexual behavior may have been present in humanity for millions of years, but homosexuality as we in the west recognize it has not.

In many cultures across the globe, it has been common for grown men to engage in sexual contact with teenage boys or young men. But forming long-lasting romantic relationships with them once they reached adulthood (in some Greek city-states this might come as late as the age of 30) was unthinkable. In several tribes in Papua-New Guinea, they believe that a boy can literally not become a man without being the receptive partner with another man for several years. When he reaches adulthood, he's then expected to be the penetrative partner, and eventually stop sleeping with men entirely.

The concept of Two-Spirit people was a fundamental institution among most tribal peoples in North America. It usually implies a a masculine spirit and a feminine spirit living in the same body. While it's often taken as "the Native American term for gays and lesbians", it is most certainly not. People in relationships with a Two-Spirit would not consider themselves to be a homosexual and would see a sharp divide between themselves and the Two-Spirits. Two-Spirit is not meant to be analogous to any other concept outside of the cultures that it originates from.

Statistics on male homosexual identity has found that those who don't engage in anal sex or only engage in it as the penetrative partner are less likely to identify as "gay". Throughout history, a similar attitude has been held wherein the receptive partner was seen as being the "other"--often viewed as feminized--while the penetrative partner would continue to hold the same position in society as men who did not engage in same sex relations.

So if the concept isn't a universal one and is in fact very, very recent, does homosexuality as we conceive of it even exist objectively, or is it simply another social construct surrounding the natural inclination to occasionally engage in homosexual behavior?

I don't see why you would limit this question to homosexuality, though. I have no problem saying that homosexuality as we know it today (and I mean the sexual identity not just the desire for sex with a person of the same gender) is nothing more than a modern, western construct. But then, that's only because I have no problem saying the same thing about heterosexuality. We like to divide people into categories, and why not? We all construct our own personal identities by looking at the categories we are apart of, and more importantly, the categories we are not members of. Think about all the anti-immigrant rhetoric that starts flying in America on a fairly regular basis, dating all the way back to, well, the beginning of the country, reaching a fever pitch in the 19th century. Americans are not Italians. Americans are not Jews. Americans are not Eastern Europeans. Americans are not Germans. Americans are not Muslim. Americans are not Mexicans.

The way you construct an identity is by excluding everything that is not like you. In that way, you can point to the Other without actually having to articulate anything about yourself. Once those lines start to blur or become obstructed, things start to fall apart and people become increasingly uncomfortable, angry, and reactionary. That is why anti-immigrant rhetoric can get so very, very passionate and then just sorta die down until the next time something happens to work the country into a frenzy. It's a silly example, but remember the old episode of Taxi when Latka Gravas decides he's tired of being different and he wants to be American like everybody else? He calls himself Victor Ferarri, he mimics radio announcers (so he has a common American accent), he focuses on material gains and wealth, and he wants to be a swinging bachelor. He mimics American culture perfectly, he doesn't hurt anybody in the process, and the rest of the characters hate him and basically force him to become Latka again. He made them so uncomfortable because he was not only a pretty accurate mirror, but he upset the dynamics of the group. He was no longer The Other.

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Well, I'm getting to it. Not everybody fit in with the traditional, western heteronormative ideals. Prior to World War II, there wasn't much to be done about that. People who would rather have relationships with men (or simply never found a woman they were interested in) either sucked it up and did their manly duty, or they became priests, or they became scholars, or in Victorian England they apparently became poets. Men and women who couldn't fit in with the social, cultural, and religious expectations of their genders were either miserable their whole lives or marginalized, or, in cases where they were actually caught, imprisoned, and often tortured and executed. There was a very real stake in making sure nobody stepped out of expected gender roles. If a man found happiness being penetrated like a woman, what did that mean for men's role in society? Worse, what did that mean for a woman's role? There could not be a bigger insult than being a "woman" in a relationship because of everything that implied. It was far too frightening to, even for a moment, allow that men and women's roles (not to mention sexuality and gender) might be fluid. Thus, in order to keep women in their place, men had to maintain their place, too.

Except...World War II changed all of that (It's an interesting note that around the turn of the 20th century, homosexual behavior was pretty common place, especially in the larger cities. It wasn't a big deal for a straight man to go find himself a "sissy" for the night). There was some shifting after World War I, and people were slightly more open about their non-traditional lifestyles, but it certainly wasn't widespread, and of course, homosexuality and sodomy were still illegal. But the changes that had happened due to the war could not be undone. First, women were allowed to leave the home in droves! Second, despite what many would have us believe, there were plenty of homosexual men and women serving in WW2, more or less openly. Instead of being ostracized, alone, and different in their small communities, they were allowed to congregate, to realize they weren't alone, and to actually be part of a community of like-minded people. This was the beginning of the Gay Rights movement, just as it was the beginning of the modern Feminist movement.

But now that these men and women were meeting and recognizing each other as different, something had to give. They began to form a communal identity, and like all identities, it had to be defined by The Other. Well they were not hetero-normative. The were not straight. They did not have the same desires and needs, and since you can pretty much reduce all of human behavior down to sexual impulses and survival, it's not that much of a surprise that these sexual impulses would be the driving force in creating a new identity.

So does homosexuality objectively exist? No. Neither does heterosexuality. Neither does bisexuality. But then, your identity as an American doesn't objectively exist, either. Strip everything else away, what do you need to do to fit into any of these groups? Have sex with a partner of the same gender, have sex with a partner of an opposite gender, and be born within arbitrary borders. Except, those terms mean a hell a lot more to the people involved. Gender doesn't exist objectively, either. We're all just bodies, blank pieces of paper, with gender inscribed onto us with words and ideals and it all feels so natural to us that we never question it. But we just muddle through, consciously and unconsciously accepting some terms and discarding others. Some people are aware of the process. Most people aren't.

Okay, but hey: earlier ideas of what homosexuality was (and whether or not it existed) don't actually mean that homosexuality didn't exist. Just because we didn't culturally recognize it until fairly recently doesn't mean that it, as it is now, didn't exist in the minds and hearts of people. Maybe there was cultural pressure to conform and get married (there was) and no concept that two men or two women could spend their lives together, and so people only had homosexual encounters instead of lifelong partnerships.

But that doesn't mean that homosexuality didn't exist. I don't think it's a cultural construct or a way of pigeon holing those with same gender desires or anything like that. There are some people who, straight up, only want to pair bond with those of the same gender. Just as there are those who only want to pair bond with those of opposite gender. Heterosexuals exist. Homosexuals exist. Bisexuals exist. While we can go "la la la, sexuality is fluid", the fact of the matter is that for men by and large it ISN'T. Men are more likely to be attracted to one gender and one gender only. Women, on the other hand, are the ones for whom it's more fluid. And that's built on centuries of people thinking women couldn't even be gay.

That ain't culture. That's ingrained.

I don't disagree that there's a sexual desire outside of the cultural labels and identities that we currently live in. I am definitely not one of those people who will look at deeply impassioned love letters between two men in the early 18th century and shrug it away with "That's just how men talked back then. Homosexuals weren't even around!" As I said in my post, there were always men and women were simply different from, or outside of, the social, cultural, and religious constructs of their time. But when I say that it's a cultural construct I am not saying "la la la sexuality is fluid." I'm saying that in the modern 21st century western world, we are dealing with specific labels (man, woman, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual) and each one of those words is heavy with meaning. Men might be "hardwired" to only be attracted to one specific gender, but if that's an immutable fact that has always been true for homo sapiens sapiens it's also an immutable fact that men who are naturally attracted to other men still did not have the luxury to indulge that desire, let alone self identify as homosexual, join a community, become politically active in the name of said identity, and have a realistic chance to change their culture for the vast majority of human existance.

We're imprisoned by language. We can't conceive of our own existence outside of language. Our physicality is completely constructed by language. Our culture, our impulses, our beliefs, our myths, our values, our sexuality is all circumscribed by language. When Zuul asks if "homosexuality objectively exists", she's essentially dealing with two issues. First, are men and women biologically inclined to prefer one gender over the other. Second, what means homosexual? The first is outside of my ability to discuss, though I accept that the answer is yes (because that's what trusted scientific sources tell me). The second, though, is a far more difficult problem. How did we get to the point in the 21st century where people can openly identify as homosexual, and what does that even mean? I think it means they're not heterosexuals. So what? What does that mean? Why do we divide people up into these categories? What is the origin of that and the benefit of it? How are we hampered or helped by our own language? Grappling with those issues is not the same as saying "sexuality is fluid la la la" and I don't believe I ever even implied as much.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

I don't disagree that there's a sexual desire outside of the cultural labels and identities that we currently live in. I am definitely not one of those people who will look at deeply impassioned love letters between two men in the early 18th century and shrug it away with "That's just how men talked back then. Homosexuals weren't even around!" As I said in my post, there were always men and women were simply different from, or outside of, the social, cultural, and religious constructs of their time. But when I say that it's a cultural construct I am not saying "la la la sexuality is fluid." I'm saying that in the modern 21st century western world, we are dealing with specific labels (man, woman, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual) and each one of those words is heavy with meaning. Men might be "hardwired" to only be attracted to one specific gender, but if that's an immutable fact that has always been true for homo sapiens sapiens it's also an immutable fact that men who are naturally attracted to other men still did not have the luxury to indulge that desire, let alone self identify as homosexual, join a community, become politically active in the name of said identity, and have a realistic chance to change their culture for the vast majority of human existance.

We're imprisoned by language. We can't conceive of our own existence outside of language. Our physicality is completely constructed by language. Our culture, our impulses, our beliefs, our myths, our values, our sexuality is all circumscribed by language. When Zuul asks if "homosexuality objectively exists", she's essentially dealing with two issues. First, are men and women biologically inclined to prefer one gender over the other. Second, what means homosexual? The first is outside of my ability to discuss, though I accept that the answer is yes (because that's what trusted scientific sources tell me). The second, though, is a far more difficult problem. How did we get to the point in the 21st century where people can openly identify as homosexual, and what does that even mean? I think it means they're not heterosexuals. So what? What does that mean? Why do we divide people up into these categories? What is the origin of that and the benefit of it? How are we hampered or helped by our own language? Grappling with those issues is not the same as saying "sexuality is fluid la la la" and I don't believe I ever even implied as much.

---

Okay, I guess I can kind of see this then. There's something pretty uncomfortable about being told my identity isn't "real", though. I mean, nobody says that your religious identity isn't "real" or says that it's a choice (and yet it is) and that makes it invalid.

Your reality is what you make it. You find the place where you are comfortable in your own skin, and that's what you are.

That's some fascinating historical background you provided in post #2, pepper. And I can't say I disagree with your position, but at the same time, I do think we can go too far with the notion that all groups are constructs.

If they ever did identify a "gay gene" (which seems unlikely - from what I can tell, the hormones that a fetus's brain are bathed in are probably the deciding factor), would you still maintain that homosexuality is a social construct? Or would that make it more concrete?

I think there may also be a danger in overthinking what homosexuality is. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (whatever hormones and chromosomes go along with it!) that pepper's argument should lead to greater acceptance and tolerance, and not taking labels too seriously. However, just let some right-wing Christian fundie turd get ahold of those ideas...they will twist them around as proof that homosexuals can be "cured". On the other hand, they are already making that claim, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hatshepsut

I think there may also be a danger in overthinking what homosexuality is. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (whatever hormones and chromosomes go along with it!) that pepper's argument should lead to greater acceptance and tolerance, and not taking labels too seriously. However, just let some right-wing Christian fundie turd get ahold of those ideas...they will twist them around as proof that homosexuals can be "cured". On the other hand, they are already making that claim, so I suppose it doesn't matter.

---

This is kind of what I was leading up to with the OP (though I didn't want to come right out and say it). Part of why we have to treat homosexuality as being a natural fact is because there are those right-wing homophobes out there who will otherwise twist it around to be a "choice" and one that we could choose against.

While I think there is more to sexual orientation than what hormones a fetal brain was exposed to and that there are aspects of personality, upbringing, and, yes, choice that go into it, it's an unfortunate situation that it's almost politically dangerous to admit how nuanced it is. I am who I am and desire who I do largely because this is how I was born, but I do recognize that aspects of my sexual identity and orientation are strongly influenced by the culture I grew up in, my family and peers.

Quote:

---

...stuff...

---

Okay, I can see that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Nrblex

Okay, I guess I can kind of see this then. There's something pretty uncomfortable about being told my identity isn't "real", though. I mean, nobody says that your religious identity isn't "real" or says that it's a choice (and yet it is) and that makes it invalid.

---

Well, I don't think any identities are "real" in that they objectively exist, and if you stripped everything away from society and put all people in some sort of neutral stasis, I don't believe any of the cultural dividers or signifiers we use would still exist. I identify as an atheist, but if religion didn't exist, the term "atheist" would be meaningless in the sense that it wouldn't be separating me from any other group. I think we all live with constructed identities, in constructed communities, and those constructs are always in a little bit of danger of falling apart.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Well, I don't think any identities are "real" in that they objectively exist, and if you stripped everything away from society and put all people in some sort of neutral stasis, I don't believe any of the cultural dividers or signifiers we use would still exist. I identify as an atheist, but if religion didn't exist, the term "atheist" would be meaningless in the sense that it wouldn't be separating me from any other group. I think we all live with constructed identities, in constructed communities, and those constructs are always in a little bit of danger of falling apart.

---

But if your identity is based off of objective likes and dislikes--say, you like PENIS--then doesn't that identity have some sort of existence? Even if your identity is just Penis Liker.

I'm resurrecting this ancient thread because I found it interesting, so there.

No identity has objective reality, because "identity" itself is a cultural creation. There are the biological properties of being male or female (but even those lines can be blurred), but "man", "woman", "gay", "straight", "Christian", "chocolate lover" and anything else like that are all cultural constructs. While homosexual behavior can often be observed in nature, animal researchers will frequently point out at some point that an exclusive orientation of an animal towards its own sex is relatively rare. What they don't point out is that the reverse can also be true. Find me a male dog that exclusively humps female dogs and I will be shocked into next week.

Because we are more complex than other animals, we can construct complex identities. A dog doesn't typically have a sexual preference in the way we'd understand it. He wishes to mount things and the pheremones and visual stimulation of a bitch in heat will usually increase his desire to mount things. But he doesn't sit around thinking about how much he likes bitches in heat. Humans are able to conceptualize the things we enjoy and think about them in ways other animals can't. To some people, masculine people trip the same triggers in their brains that dogs experience when they scent a bitch. To others, those triggers are tripped by feminine people. Others can be aroused by both. But it is our complex brain that allows us to put meaning to that arousal. And in the end it is the meaning we've assigned--these mental symbols of masculine and feminine--that we end up responding to.

Your concept of what constitutes an object of your desire is a subjective idea that's based on cultural conditioning and life experience. The basics--genitalia, secondary sex characteristics--might be things that are hardwired, but since we're not walking down the streets naked and hairy we've fetishized the outward cultural trappings of gender. Without our cultural trappings surrounding these things, we'd probably all be as capable as dogs to just hump any old thing that gets in our way while reserving special effort for one particular type. This is why something that we assume is as intrinsic as sexual orientation can differ wildly in its expressions across cultures and times.