Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It is well documented that heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs. This does not in any way reduce the importance of these concepts for modern society or the equal dignity that should be afforded to each, obviously. But it's always a good thing not to essentialize this kind of categories.

So sexual stimulation as the result of attractiveness upon sight of a male or female or either leading to changes in heart rates, sweating, pupil dilation, subconscious responses to smells , erection and self lubrication are 'constructs'?

Yes, obviously our sense of attractiveness is socially constructed. I thought everyone knew that. Just look at old paintings, every era and every area had its own specific definition of male and female beauty. The fact that it elicits physical reactions doesn't in any way disprove its social origins.

Sex predates society though, so sexual attraction cannot have a social origin.  Society can influence sex, it is not the origin.   And, what you're talking about is the preference for a type of female body or male body, not one or the other. 

Plus, just look at societies like Saudi Arabia where homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.  There are still plenty of gay people in Saudi Arabia, how is that possible if sexuality is based on their society? 

The natural sex drive is simply the desire to stroke one's genitalia. What they are to be stroked against is determined, among humans, mostly by social constructions. Animals have pheromones, which serve as a means to further reproduction, but among humans it's scientifically documented that pheromones are much weaker than in most animal species.

By socially constructed, I don't simply mean based on norms of social acceptability. The two things can even be opposite. Actually, homosexuality was constructed as such in the 19th century mostly as a way to place a stigma on this behavior whereas before the stigma didn't really exist or take different forms. It's not that men having sex with other men didn't exist, it simply means that this wasn't considered as a fundamental category per se.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like nobody here understands how social construction actually works.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It's true that "heterosexuality" and "homosexuality" are modern constructs, but the stigma on relationships between men obviously existed before in many societies under the names of "sodomy" or "bestialism". There wasn't a "category" or an "identity" around such relationships, but they were reprehensible behaviours harshly punished by intolerant societies.

Yes, indeed. I would never imply that earlier societies were more tolerant (as a strong proponent of philosophical progressivism, I obviously wouldn't say such a thing). Although some societies did tolerate some forms of "homosexuality" (where basically adult upper-class men had a perceived right to f**k any person of lower status, like in ancient Greece or Rome). But again this wasn't "homosexuality" in the sense we understand it today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sexuality is not just the desire to ... stroke one's genitals, it's a method to build and sustain relationships, to continue your genetic line etc etc...

Animals don't really "build and sustain relationships", though.

Anyway, the point is not to say that the desire to have sex with a person of the same sex is a construct of modern society. The point is that this was not understood as, in any way, something comparable to modern homosexuality (ie a general and universal preference for the same sex). Maybe I didn't do a good job at explaining it, but I had a gender class (taught by a gay professor, no less) which did a good job at it, and I can include some bibliographic reference.

philosophical progressivism

Quick question: Is this the whole "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" thing?

Yup. This quote is one of the best summaries of my thought I've ever heard.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sexuality is not just the desire to ... stroke one's genitals, it's a method to build and sustain relationships, to continue your genetic line etc etc...

Animals don't really "build and sustain relationships", though.

Anyway, the point is not to say that the desire to have sex with a person of the same sex is a construct of modern society. The point is that this was not understood as, in any way, something comparable to modern homosexuality (ie a general and universal preference for the same sex). Maybe I didn't do a good job at explaining it, but I had a gender class (taught by a gay professor, no less) which did a good job at it, and I can include some bibliographic reference.

philosophical progressivism

Quick question: Is this the whole "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" thing?

Yup. This quote is one of the best summaries of my thought I've ever heard.

Antonio V, it's not that we don't get what this guy are saying, it's just that we think it's arrogant, meaningless and stupid. Yes I get the idea that modern gay identity are a relative new social construct, but I happen to think that being gay are much more basic than that, it's about people both being sexual attracted to their own sex and falling in love with people of their own sex, and that's not new. Just because people in the past didn't take part in Pride Parades or other stereotypical modern aspects of the gay lifestyle or behaved in stereotypical gay manner, didn't make them less gay. 

No, you definitely don't seem to get what I'm saying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, I find it a sad reflection on the ideological state of our society, that in order to be considered rightful and deserving of respect, a type of identity has to be grounded in nature. Why is considering something to be a social construct equivalent to dismissing their worth? Most of the good things humanity has have been given to us by society, rather than by nature.

[Antonio the Sixth]

No, you definitely don't seem to get what I'm saying.

We do. We counter it, and you say it again. We counter it again (I spent some time on that) and you just repeat it and say we 'don't understand' you. That's usually an indicator that the person regurgitating the idea doesn't actually know about it

You replied to my post and I counter-replied, at which point you abandoned the conversation. If you're not interested in having a substantial discussion that's fine, but you're not exactly in a position to comment on the quality of my argumentation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Except I didn't say those who "are giving specific reasons to oppose it" weren't understanding. I only gave this argument after my own views were grossly mispresented.

I never claimed that same-sex attraction is a creation of modern society. Nor did I say that those who feel this attraction do so because they've been conditioned by society. Note that I opened my first post with "homosexuality and heterosexuality" are social construct. The latter was just as foreign to past societies as the former. The issue is with the way we create our social categories and how we define personal identity. For a long time, sexual attraction didn't play a part into it.

Also yes, you raise good points in your effortpost and I actually agree with it. As I believe I said at the very beginning, it doesn't really matter in the end whether sexual attraction is constructed or not, and I acknowledge that the best course in the way toward equality is to embrace these existing categories and work within them. Still, this doesn't in any way undermine the constructionist argument.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who expresses contempt for social sciences should never ever been taken seriously on a political forum, since he would obviously be utterly unable to master the basic notions necessary to have a remotely worthwhile opinion on political issues.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyone who expresses contempt for social sciences should never ever been taken seriously on a political forum, since he would obviously be utterly unable to master the basic notions necessary to have a remotely worthwhile opinion on political issues.

I don't think anyone has expressed contempt for 'social sciences'  - as a former student OF them, I do think there are shortcomings, but I've yet to see contempt.

You didn't, but Bedstuy definitely did.