The support I have received in this Forum has made such an amazing difference in this journey I've been on for the last few months, of exploring that side of my sexuality that I had suppressed for so long previously. And I feel very grateful for all the efforts of everyone who has helped me to come to terms with my sexuality, from my heart I again thank all who have assisted. But I am now also seeking some kind of book or online resource that can scientifically prove to me, why it's ok for me to be feeling the way I do. My attraction to guys is increasing lately, it is that 'side' of my (presumably) bisexual nature that I never allowed myself to delve into until relatively recently, and I'm already taking steps to join a real-life meetup group, and will also go out to a gay venue as soon as family responsibilities allow. So before I do, is there any book or online resource I can read, that might persuade me in an intellectual fashion, that a guy wanting to be physically, sexually, and romantically intimate with another guy is natural, has an explanation grounded in science, essentially, is ok? I feel the feelings, but to accept them I still need some convincing. I'm really trying here, I am trying to accept this same-sex attraction, but it's hard sometimes. Recently I have had this perception of being 'free', 'liberated'. That feels great, but I still need more convincing, I am such a doubter.
I understand what you are saying. But this kind of thing is beyond the province of science. It lies in the terrain of philosophy, literature, even (if I may) autobiography. Science cannot prove an ethical position like this any more than it can prove that democracy is the best form of government. I sense that religious constraints are perhaps still weighing on your mind. Maybe once you have obviated these - indeed, by accepting a fully scientific rather than religious worldview - you will accept that following your feelings with consenting adults requires no further justification, scientific or otherwise. When I was coming out - I really still am ( ! ) - the essays of Gore Vidal were pretty important for thinking through the place of homosexuality in human life. 'Virtually Normal' by Andrew Sullivan is also great. It's part memoir, part careful analysis of the LGBT movement and gay life in the late 90s. It's sensitive and learned and hopefully should be soothing.
I can see your point. I meant something along the lines of what I read in Wikipedia; that homosexuality actually occurs across other species as well, not just among humans. But I was wondering if something a bit more shall we say reputable than Wikipedia is available to read about the subject. If old religious concerns are still weighing on my mind, then they must be coming up from my 'subconscious' so to speak, because I utterly reject the homophobia of especially the Abrahamic faiths, although they are not the only ones with much to answer for. I will have a read of those essays, and I appreciate you informing me of them. When it comes down to it, it's that question of 'does it do any harm' again. Is any harm whatsoever done to anyone, by two consenting adults of the same gender having sexual intimacy? No, none whatsoever. I can see that. But even understanding and agreeing with that, why am I still uneasy about accepting that it's ok for me to be this way? Maybe in time, I will be able to let go of this need for further justification than just this: I like it, and it does no harm. hehe. Thank you Damien.
I see. I think there may be books about animal homosexual behaviour about. Stephen Fry has been quite vocal on publicising the research around this, and more and more evidence comes out all the time. There may even be a picture book of same sex animal relations. As I said in another thread, I'm sceptical that such behaviour is analogous to human homosexuality, but I understand that it can be quite uplifting to think about... I too found it ok for others but not ok for me. Why? I don't know. It's so hard to think past that desperate wanting to be straight, in my case. I don't know if that's it. But I empathise.(*hug*)
I can understand and relate, Damien, though I unfortunately have no solid answers. I was raised in a somewhat religious household, but not very, and am not religious myself, so that's not the issue. If anything I subscribe to the belief that humans are just another species of animal, and it's been a simple trick of evolution that we've done what we have thus far. It helps to know some animals of other species engage in homosexual behavior, but at the same time part of my mind still tells me it's "unnatural." Our drive should be to reproduce to continue the species and pass on our genes, right? Well, humans do all kinds of "unnatural" things already, including utilizing contraceptives to avoid having children, so it's not really so different, is it? People have sex for pleasure much more often than for the purpose of producing offspring. I am trying to see homosexuality as simply a natural deviation from "the norm." If we still lived by the credo "survival of the fittest" in society today, it's possible homosexuality may eventually have just disappeared as we are less likely to be passing our genes on. But that's the case for many other things, as well. There's no specific "gay gene" that has been found, but evidence seems to point to the fact that we are "born this way" and if that is the case, then it's "natural." Still part of me struggles with the idea that it may be "less." I know logically speaking that that is not the case, but internalized homophobia raises a lot of doubt and shame. I guess to go to another unique individual for insight, as Temple Grandin says "I am different, not less."
Thanks Storm, for your reply. I woke up this morning feeling a bit guilty that I had posted this; I thought to myself, "folks are struggling enough already with accepting themselves, without you (myself) bringing up this 'is it natural' doubt again'". But reading your post that you can relate, makes me feel less alone; and furthermore, you are absolutely correct when you point out that the main reason folks in general, straight folks included, have sex is for pleasure, and not to conceive a child. I am ready to drop the whole 'is it natural' question now. Not just humans, but also other mammals engage in it (sex for the sake of pleasure alone, and not with the intention of producing offspring). If 'Nature' had really 'intended' that sex was to be 'purely' for reproduction, homosexual behavior would not exist in animal species - nor in ours. I mean most straight folks have sex for pleasure, maybe 99% of the time they will use some form of birth control so they don't conceive a child! How 'natural' is that? But does all of this matter? No, not really. I'm sorry for bringing it up. I hope I did not make anyone doubt more. I can now 'defeat' my own doubts, though. And your post has helped me and validated the realizations I had this morning. It is 'natural' because it exists. Stars exist. Planets exist. And same-sex attraction exists. It all seems so silly now, this lingering doubt I have. I think it is old religious conditioning that still lurks somewhere in my subconscious, placed there when I was young, probably. I go through these polar shifts. One day, I am feeling bad about my sexuality, the next, I am fighting for this cause, against the doubts. I'm sick of the hypocrisy not just of the churches - who can hardly claim to be any kind of moral authority in anything, considering all the abuses they have perpetrated - but also of some straight folks who use that argument 'only a man and a women can conceive a child, and sex is for procreaction'. If they are going to use that argument, then they had better stop having sex for pleasure then - but they don't, do they? The entire argument falls down in a heap of self-contradiction. You made a good quote, "I am different, not less". I just realized that the reason that life has been so successful on this planet, is because of the immense diversity not just of species, but also within species. Nature's 'hit and miss' approach has worked well, because the more diversity there is, the more alterations from 'the norm', the better the chances of some characteristic arising that will help the species survive. In our current state of this planet bursting at the seams with energy and resource-hungry human beings, more gay / lesbian folk could actually help the species to survive, because in general lgbt folk tend to have less kids, than straight folk. Being gay or lesbian is good for the planet, and for humanity! But ultimately, it comes back to the basic argument of 'does it do any harm', to which the answer is a resounding, "no". Even just using a computer is about as far from what Nature brought us into existence with, that if we are going to use the 'natural' argument we had better also disconnect our pc's and our power supply, and live in caves or under trees, because that is all that 'Nature' supplied for us; the rest, we have fashioned for ourselves. Thanks again for your reply, it has helped me, and I'm feeling much more at ease with all of this today. Damien
Without needing to read any external source, I just recalled a few significant facts, that also contribute to answering the doubts I raised in my original post. The clitoris is located on the outside of the female body. Why the outside? If sex were *just* for procreation, it would have made more sense to place it somewhere internally. Furthermore, the prostate gland in men is located in such a place as to allow for sexual pleasure during anal sex. That too is significant, I believe. I'm not saying these facts 'prove' anything, just that they open up a few questions, and to my mind might suggest that, sex being a health-giving activity whether one is conceiving a child or not, that maybe Nature has allowed for that. Just conjecture, but it does undermine the notion of sex as being *only* for procreation. That being the case, it would appear that there is absolutely nothing 'unnatural' or 'wrong' with two consenting adults of the same gender, having physical, romantic and / or sexual intimacy.
Hmmm. Interesting observations. The prostate thing is way out there, though, and I find it highly unlikely that there is any selective pressure for the human prostate to have a dual function as a facilitator of anal sex. Happy coincidence maybe ? It's important to remember that 'Nature' is an abstraction and that there is no purposive intelligence behind human biology. As a cancer biologist once told me, it's pretty obvious that this is the case because nobody would design humans as they are - for instance, the body becomes victim to several of its own mechanisms in old age, past peak reproductive age anyway, simply because there is no selective pressure to breed out such defects. Part of the reason, I would speculate, that propensities for homosexual desire have survived is that even in societies with a high normative value to homosexuality (e.g. ancient Athens, many American and African tribes) where same sex activities are very common, procreation is still doable and expected for all. There is no selective pressure against homosexuality because those with personal same sex desires still tend to pass on their 'gay' genes; gay men even now rarely object to sex with women in and of itself! To explain further, satyrs in Greek comedies, as well as actual Athenian men, often expressed strong sexual preferences for men (which passed mostly without comment), but were expected to get marry and procreate; sexual desire is not necessarily linked to behaviour as we link them in the modern West. Even more persuasive is the case of the Fua'fine (?) a class of effeminate/third gender men in Africa, many of whom seem to have homosexual desires. They seem however to take on multiple mates, of both genders, and procreate with the female ones. Human society is indeed diverse! My basic point is that it might be *better* in a a way had natural selection bred out same-sex desired people, but I think it is probable that in the ancestral environment, these people always had sex with opposite sex people at least a few times in their life, preserving the genetic component of homosexuality. Another book I would read that really helped me understand everything is David Halperin's '100 years of homosexuality' which goes into detail about the invention of classes of sexual orientation which had not existed conceptually prior to the nineteenth century.
