TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic

Thread: Is homosexuality a social construction? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.

Registration Image

  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 11th, 2013 04:51 AM
égalité
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

All sexual orientations are. They're just the oversimplified labels we come up with to talk about sexual attraction.
Apr 11th, 2013 12:38 AM
Nicolás89
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joelle View Post
Is this for me?

If so, I just have to say here that I don't have any hard evidence to back my beliefs which are complex and cross over into more complex subjects like spirituality and the nature of existence. I haven't given this subject too much thought so it's not easy to put anything forward with clout. But I'll give it a go.

All living things have an inherent drive to reproduce (and diversify). Plants, animals and whatnot. This drive has biological manifestations (e.g. gender specific pheromones etc), but it has a non-physical / spiritual / energetic root. This has to be the case to sustain an environment of diversity, change, expansion and creativity (even within groups) - which the earth is intended to be. [As intended by God/Source/Non-physical].

Looking specifically at humans, if you for a moment consider that we are eternal spiritual beings at our core (eternal souls), and so also entertain the idea of reincarnation - you are more open to considering the idea that between lifetimes, decisions and intentions are made at the soul level about what else or what new way of life can be experienced by a given spiritual entity in their next physical form (- ideally an intention that may benefit the expansion of humanity as a whole and allow the soul to expand in terms of knowledge about the countless ways humanhood can be experienced). Past experiences are taken into account (been there, done that). Hence, all souls have experienced being men, being women, being third/fourth gender, being every race, and every ability.

Gosh I hope you've been able to follow this mess of an explanation so far.

Pansexuality and Asexuality may fit into this system by offering new relatively unique vantage points to the human experience. Isn't it just interesting to experience life without the drive to connect sexually (asexual) or without rigid ideas about who you should be connecting with and in what way (pansexual).

I don't think I'm doing a good job explaining, but what I'm trying to say it that, there is a need to heterosexual drives to ensure the survival of the species (which may account for why heterosexuality is the dominant orientation in all living things), but alternative sexualities are not disorders. They are deliberately intended perhaps just for the experience of something other than heterosexuality, but also as a reminder to humanity to not get so bonded to ideas about beingness and the rightness of things. God/Source/Non-physical is a fluid and creative - process/thing.

Diversity is just the order of the day. There's no good reason for different races other than the diversity (as with the different colours of flowers and birds).


Fuck this. I'm sure you guys will dismiss this as baseless mumbo jumbo - but as I said, I haven't focused on this topic in this way, so it's difficult to lay down an argument with real clout. But I think my essential point is that, these topics can be almost impossible to grasp because we leave god/soure/that-which-we-don't-understand out of the equation. It's like trying to answer the question where does water come from, by saying 'the tap'. When in reality, there is a bigger picture available.
Great post.

I honestly don't have much to say since I'm mostly uneducated about the subject but great posts everyone really, it has been really interesting to read your ideas.
Apr 11th, 2013 12:29 AM
Joelle
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolás89 View Post
What about asexuals? and pansexuals?
Is this for me?

If so, I just have to say here that I don't have any hard evidence to back my beliefs which are complex and cross over into more complex subjects like spirituality and the nature of existence. I haven't given this subject too much thought so it's not easy to put anything forward with clout. But I'll give it a go.

All living things have an inherent drive to reproduce (and diversify). Plants, animals and whatnot. This drive has biological manifestations (e.g. gender specific pheromones etc), but it has a non-physical / spiritual / energetic root. This has to be the case to sustain an environment of diversity, change, expansion and creativity (even within groups) - which the earth is intended to be. [As intended by God/Source/Non-physical].

Looking specifically at humans, if you for a moment consider that we are eternal spiritual beings at our core (eternal souls), and so also entertain the idea of reincarnation - you are more open to considering the idea that between lifetimes, decisions and intentions are made at the soul level about what else or what new way of life can be experienced by a given spiritual entity in their next physical form (- ideally an intention that may benefit the expansion of humanity as a whole and allow the soul to expand in terms of knowledge about the countless ways humanhood can be experienced). Past experiences are taken into account (been there, done that). Hence, all souls have experienced being men, being women, being third/fourth gender, being every race, and every ability.

Gosh I hope you've been able to follow this mess of an explanation so far.

Pansexuality and Asexuality may fit into this system by offering new relatively unique vantage points to the human experience. Isn't it just interesting to experience life without the drive to connect sexually (asexual) or without rigid ideas about who you should be connecting with and in what way (pansexual).

I don't think I'm doing a good job explaining, but what I'm trying to say it that, there is a need to heterosexual drives to ensure the survival of the species (which may account for why heterosexuality is the dominant orientation in all living things), but alternative sexualities are not disorders. They are deliberately intended perhaps just for the experience of something other than heterosexuality, but also as a reminder to humanity to not get so bonded to ideas about beingness and the rightness of things. God/Source/Non-physical is a fluid and creative - process/thing.

Diversity is just the order of the day. There's no good reason for different races other than the diversity (as with the different colours of flowers and birds).


Fuck this. I'm sure you guys will dismiss this as baseless mumbo jumbo - but as I said, I haven't focused on this topic in this way, so it's difficult to lay down an argument with real clout. But I think my essential point is that, these topics can be almost impossible to grasp because we leave god/soure/that-which-we-don't-understand out of the equation. It's like trying to answer the question where does water come from, by saying 'the tap'. When in reality, there is a bigger picture available.
Apr 11th, 2013 12:09 AM
Joana
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
If one day he met Mary and they both felt the urge - it wouldn't be a thing.
And how exactly is it a "thing" now?

Literally everything in human experience can be reduced to a "social construction". But that wouldn't make us much smarter since it would only make us go back to square one since it's impossible to recreate some purely "natural" tabula rasa state.

Besides, I don't see why labels should necessarily be a bad thing. If anything, it's good for men who are interested in men to know that there are other people like them around instead of operating under the assumption that all other men might or might not be interested in men.
Apr 10th, 2013 11:40 PM
Nicolás89
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

What about asexuals? and pansexuals?
Apr 10th, 2013 11:37 PM
Joelle
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

I haven't read everything posted (and so any clarifications that may have been made) but I disagree. I think there is a biochemical element to sexuality, at least to natural feelings of attractions. I don't have a body of evidence to back this up but the first time I was attracted to a man, it was upon sensing his pheromones. Something was stirred within me, a feeling of intoxication - I had to be near him. What I'm saying is that I suspect there is at least a blueprint perhaps, a trigger of arousal that is innate and can generally different in heterosexual men and women. I suspect in gay men the blue print is similar to those of women, and lesbian vice versa. There is some evidence for (some) gay men have psychobiology that is similar to women. A study by someone called Levay is quoted, I read it in a Biogogical Psychology book.

But I do accept sexual behaviour is not as simple as that. So I can appreciate that precise sexual tastes may be conditioned / constructed as life goes on, perhaps at key stages. For instance how and when do we decide if we prefer certain races, hair colours, fetishes and sexual roles (Femdom, bondage and all that).

But I feel that to suggest sexual orientation is almost purely a social construct, as if everyone is bisexual at their root - certainly contradicts my personal experience and just doesn't sound accurate. If it were so, shouldn't bisexuality be the order of the day in the animal kingdom. I have heard of gay animals, but sexual orientation in animals seems pretty rigid.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:57 PM
pov
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagsquet View Post
Of course.
Gays are gays because they are a bunch of fucking hipsters wannabee.
The OP isn't suggesting "society makes people feel attracted to others of the same sex/gender" He is - I hope - suggesting that society has created rigid constructs around sexuality and that - without those constructs - sexuality is often more fluid. See my above post for more.

And BTW there are circles where getting it on with someone of the same sex is considered hip.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:55 PM
moby
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
I didn't read LDV's OP as being about "born gay or not" (i.e. nature/nature) but about the instituting of rigid categories that people shunt themselves into. Without those constructs people would flow freely. Sure Pete may get it on only with other fellows but the whole psychology that has come to be associated with that wouldn't exist. If one day he met Mary and they both felt the urge - it wouldn't be a thing.
You're romanticising "flowing freely" from a biased heterosexist perspective. The truth remains that two men (or women) who were in love were not able to get married, in whichever culture from whichever era of yore, regardless of whether sex between the same sexes was not greatly frowned upon in those cultures or not. That is only a possibility now.

There was a whole different construct back in the day, it was unspoken and unexamined, not nonexistent.

Here's a bit about the ancient Greek culture upheld as a typical example of a supposedly liberal culture that allowed homosexuality:

Quote:
Given the importance in Greek society of cultivating the masculinity of the adult male and the perceived feminizing effect of being the passive partner, relations between adult men of comparable social status were considered highly problematic, and usually associated with social stigma. This stigma, however, was reserved for only the passive partner in the relationship. According to contemporary opinion, Greek males who engaged in passive homosexuality after reaching the age of manhood - at which point they were the expected to take the reverse role in pederastic relationships and become the active and dominant member - thereby were feminized or "made a woman" of themselves. There is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium and shame ("atimia") heaped upon them by their society.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:47 PM
pov
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by miffedmax View Post
We'll probably never know, given the social complexity of humans. The fact is that our sexual desires and drives predate any culture, and our very idea of heterosexual marriage predates our written history and has varied widely over the course of our recorded existence.

We don't even fully know how naturally monogomous we are. I know this is one of Focoult's favorite arguments (then again he says the same thing about insanity) but the problem is we just don't know what those first folks stomping around in Africa about 100,000 years ago thought about a whole lot of issues.

Nature or nurture is almost impossible to separate.
Maybe I'm missing some of your points. There is enough evidence that supports LDV's point. It seems clear that rigid sexual classifications imposed on an entire population are - like race - entirely social constructs.

I agree with your point on monogamy - although there too there is enough data to infer that there is no "we are." The idea that humans are Borg is one of the enduring stumbling-blocks that arises from viewpoints originally instituted to "control the masses"

I didn't read LDV's OP as being about "born gay or not" (i.e. nature/nature) but about the instituting of rigid categories that people shunt themselves into. Without those constructs people would flow freely. Sure Pete may get it on only with other fellows but the whole psychology that has come to be associated with that wouldn't exist. If one day he met Mary and they both felt the urge - it wouldn't be a thing.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:43 PM
Gagsy
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Of course.
Gays are gays because they are a bunch of fucking hipsters wannabee.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:27 PM
pov
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wild.river View Post
the simplistic viewpoint would make sense to you if you had read the context: "I'm trying to extricate all of those colonial ideologies from my mind and spirit."
It did "make sense" but I still hold that it is simplistic. There is so much about the context as in "what exactly is a colonial ideology" To ascertain that one would have to accurately trace the germination of the idea and then search to make sure that there was no corresponding or even relatively similar idea in or around the indigenous population.
Apr 10th, 2013 09:07 PM
miffedmax
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

We'll probably never know, given the social complexity of humans. The fact is that our sexual desires and drives predate any culture, and our very idea of heterosexual marriage predates our written history and has varied widely over the course of our recorded existence.

We don't even fully know how naturally monogomous we are. I know this is one of Focoult's favorite arguments (then again he says the same thing about insanity) but the problem is we just don't know what those first folks stomping around in Africa about 100,000 years ago thought about a whole lot of issues.

Nature or nurture is almost impossible to separate.
Apr 10th, 2013 06:45 PM
wild.river
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moby View Post
Your suggestion would make sense if West Africa were a virgin land free of any colonial heritage. But she is not, and so it does not. You can't escape the after-effects of colonialism wherever you are.
no, but there are degrees of colonial heritage. the West and Africa are no where near equivalent from the perspective of someone who descended from American slaves.
Apr 10th, 2013 06:38 PM
moby
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wild.river View Post
the simplistic viewpoint would make sense to you if you had read the context: "I'm trying to extricate all of those colonial ideologies from my mind and spirit."
Your suggestion would make sense if West Africa were a virgin land free of any colonial heritage. But she is not, and so it does not. You can't escape the after-effects of colonialism wherever you are.
Apr 10th, 2013 06:33 PM
wild.river
Re: Is homosexuality a social construction?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pov View Post
If people are all going to head for wherever there ancestors came from, the USA is going to be almost empty. It may not have been snarky but it is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint. The first major movement of Africans being brought to America was about 350 years ago. To use that as a barometer for one's current choices is IMO inane.

IMO The question is equivalent to asking if someone will consider no longer listening to jazz, blues, rock, R&B, hip-hop, reggae and almost all forms of contemporary music - since without the forced ttransfer of Africans it's likely none of them would exits.
the simplistic viewpoint would make sense to you if you had read the context: "I'm trying to extricate all of those colonial ideologies from my mind and spirit."
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome