Tuesday, 15 April 2008

There Is No Such Thing As Homosexuality

There, I've said it - there is no such thing as homosexuality. Now before a gay-rights lynch mob arrives to sodomize convince me otherwise, let me make it clear that I don't think that heterosexuality truly exists either.

I think that one of the problems with modern westernized societies is we have set up this false "either/or" dichotomy when it comes to our sexual identities. People are regarded as either completely heterosexual or completely homosexual with very little wiggle room in between (perhaps a few bisexuals who can't make up their minds). Rather, I think that each of us falls somewhere along a sexual continuum - a bell curve somewhat skewed towards the heterosexual side of the equation.

In ancient societies, as well as in many current ones outside of the western world, this concept was well understood. The ancient Greeks are perhaps the most famous example. Although the literature is full of examples of rampant homosexual behaviour, very few would have identified themselves as gay. They were merely sexual beings doing what they felt like without regard to labels. Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.

In a way it has only been the freedom of the Internet that has once again revealed the full depth of human sexual desire and the diverse ways in which those urges can be expressed. It has shown that there is so much out there that can't be easily pigeonholed into neat little categories.

So where do we go from here? The gay rights movement has served an important role in liberating all of our sexualities, but I think it is now time to move past such labels and embrace a true sexual continuum for all people. At least I think that has to be the ultimate goal.

Posted by Brian at 20:32 Wednesday, 9 April 2008

Anonymous said...

Also, Aboriginals see sexuality as being on a continuum.Some even have up to 8 genders in their traditions. Traditionally they do not have our western "gay" or "straight" boxes that we tend to want to shove people into. sexuality is not as static as society would like us to believe

Interesting topic!

Laurie said...

I've always explained to people that I think homosexuality and heterosexuality fall along the same continuum. My ex-husband is gay, but as we have a son, he probably falls closer to the center. His partner, who can't even think about being with a woman obviously falls a couple of standard deviations farther out.

Anonymous said...

Lets be honest Brian. Any gay mob would have to have pretty low standards to 'sodomize' a fatty like you. Too many burgers?

AphroditeRising said...

My sentiments exactly. Hence my latest blog, LOL. Hey, maybe my DNA test would point to greek origins?

Yet another interesting point you've made. Cheers!


seventyandtwo said...

Alláh-u-abhá Brian,

I agree wholeheartedly. I have an aunt who says "I am not a lesbian, I just have never met the right man to make me straight" and I think we all fall along those lines. I think the most heterosexual of us are just far more attracted to women, and far more socio-culturally comfortable with that aspect of their sexuality.

As someone who has come to realize relatively recently that I am equally attracted to both gender, I have noticed how strong my culturally ingrained "straightness" is.

Attraction ought not need to fit into a label. We are attracted to who we are attracted too, and that should be label enough.

God Bless,
Ruhi (Gerald)

Aldrin F.T. said...

There we go. *THUMBS UP* Excellent one, Brian. Simply done yet beautifully.

seventyandtwo said...

(double post)

The Ridger, FCD said...

Ah, but until gay rights are set, how many people will be willing to go over to that end of the spectrum? It's not time to stop fighting yet.

Which doesn't mean I don't agree with you about the spectrum, because I do.

the chaplain said...

Over the past few millenia, western society somehow lost that connection and has thus suffered under a strict, sexually repressive moral code.

There's no question about how the connection was lost, is there?

Mercurious said...

I think you're absolutely right on this. Surely there is something libidinous about the male penchant for bonding through sports, for example.

Same gender sexual activity in prisons, for example, is far in excess of the incidence of classic homosexuality in the general population. This suggests you're right: sexuality is sexuality.

Aldrin F.T. said...

By the way, Brian, permission to cross-post in my blog please? With your name and url of course.

sacred slut said...

I've thought this for some time. I consider myself primarily hetero, but I did have an intense sexual crush on a colleague at one time. She was married, so I never said anything, but I imagine if I thought she had been receptive I might have done...

I think if there weren't this strict delineation people might fall in love (or just lust) and have sex with either gender at various times. Gay people are more likely to have experimented this way, it seems.

Brian said...

Great comments everybody (except for the wit who called me a fatty). I especially like the personal stories that have backed up my thoughts.

Aldrin, yes you have my permission to cross-post.

Chaplain, in that exact paragraph you're talking about I started spelling out the somehow a little more clearly, but I didn't want to sidetrack the main point.

It is starting to seem obvious that most people would act very different if there wasn't this strict seperation of sexual choices. Far from being "immoral", I think embracing our true sexualities might actually be the healthiest thing we could do psychologically.

jeber said...

From those of us who have been trying for years to express this point, substantiated by our own lives, thank you.

There's too much either/or, black/white thinking on a host of topics. Life is far more gray than many people make it out to be.

1 comment:

  1. (This is also cross-posted from the Primordial Blog)

    Enlightening, but since I've just popped a few DAPills before I read this let me play the part. (those are Devil's Advocate Pills for the curious.. I always have a set of weird prescription drugs on my computer table, thank you very much.)

    First, let me invoke the Great Goddess Semantica of a Thousand Tongues to my aid. Homosexuality and Heterosexuality exists. Simple logic tells us so, because the fact that we have the idea of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality (and good'ole Bisexuality for that matter) means that they exists. Now as to what planes of existence these ideas can be applied (i.e. Mental to Physical since the Spiritual is unified or Tiphareth to Malkuth for Kabalistically inclined), that's the debatable issue.

    Of course, I wouldn't really let myself get caught with such a simple argument, right? Huh? You're not sure? Hmm, let's go out some time so I can tell you about myself..


    My friend is Wiccan. For those a little behind their research, most Wiccans believe in a duality of the Divine--which means that they have both a masculine and a feminine deity figures (the Goddess and the God, to be general in names). Unfortunately, my friend insists on telling me that Satan (the Judeo-Christian representation of Evil) doesn't exist, yet he animatedly points out that Diana, Marduk, Isis and a host of other divinities are real.

    Hmm, interesting. My friend has somehow gained the ability to make beings non-existent by force of whim. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Wiccans in general (being a former Wiccan myself), but many wiccans actually believe that Satan (or any other being not good enough for their worldview, for that matter) could not and does not exist! Just because something doesn't fit your philosophy, it doesn't mean that it does not exist. Monotheistic religions make it clear that other divinities exists aside from the "one true god": they don't dismiss these other beings, they just ask their followers to not worship them.

    You talk about societies in your post and that's good because this is a cultural issue. Different cultures have different philosophies and ideas regarding sexuality and the issues surrounding it. That's pretty much clear to everyone. However:

    "I think that one of the problems with modern westernized societies is we have set up this false "either/or" dichotomy when it comes to our sexual identities."

    Hmm, false? On what basis? What then is true? Yes, a bulk of Western Philosophy is centered around a very binary way of thinking. Either or, niether nor. In fact, your description of this dichotomy hails a little praise to a boolean way of thinking. In my personal opinion, we cannot escape the trap of a dichotomized way of thinking, because in the end, we'll just try to argue where or not a binary way of thinking is right or wrong.

    Which brings me to another point: how can we possibly deduce that it's an "either/or" issue anyway? Except for a little remark about "bisexuals who can't make up their minds" (which comes as a little too snide, by the way), the piece seems to reduced the whole spectrum of sexuality as seen by Western Philosophy into a wholly dual topic: either you're gay or you're straight.

    That's a little too harsh, considering the fact that by putting bisexuals in a more active position on your equation, you'll be able to get a picture that resembles the idea of a continuum. Repeat after me: Homosexuals Bisexuals Heterosexuals.

    "Hey mister, what's a continuum?"

    "Well little Billy, a continuum is continuous nonspatial whole or extent or succession in which no part or portion is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts."

    "Oh.. You know mister.. You're an nerd."

    Let's see: We have Homosexuals that only have sexual intercourse with the same sex, we have Bisexuals who have intercourse with both sexes but with a higher preference for the same sex, we have Bisexuals who have intercourse with both sexes and have equal preference for both sexes, we have Bisexuals who have intercourse with both sexes but with a higher preference for the opposite sex, and finally, we have Heterosexuals who only have sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. Let's hear a cheer!

    "C! O! N! T! I! N! U! U! M!"

    "What does that spell?"


    Silence! I hear the words of the Great Goddess Semantica of a Thousand Tongues:

    "My dear children, you are blessed with a thousand words but do not be confused. One of your brothers once said that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. See that words are only sounds, and the invisible strings that give them their meanings are my gifts... and for my sake, please use the spell checker every once in a while! It's so dam.."

    Sorry, she's a bit fiesty at times. But anyway, we must remember that much of the Western way of thinking tends to abhor complexity, and we therefore tend to simplify ideas too much. This, unfortunately, is deeply ingrained that it would be impossible for us to eradicate completely.

    This is why we fail to recognize that these "neat little categories" are really what they are: simple terms for complex ideas. There are only three main categories of sexuality in western culture because that's all we really need to understand the bulk. It doesn't matter how many types of heterosexuals there are; the fact thay they want to have sex with the opposite sex is enough for the western view of sexuality.

    Which again brings me to another point: "The ancient Greeks are perhaps the most famous example. Although the literature is full of examples of rampant homosexual behaviour, very few would have identified themselves as gay."

    Maybe there's no such thing as gay to them. Maybe they have a much of more loose philosophy regarding sexuality. Maybe the modern categories of Homo, Hetero and Bi don't fit their world view. Does that mean that being straight is impossible to them?.. Hmm.. Which brings me back to the story my Wiccan friend.

    Since the idea of sexuality is different from culture to culture, we should not dismiss the modern western view like my friend dismisses Satan. We should not ignore the fact that there is no one true view regarding sexuality. Just because we'd like to think that sexuality is a continuum, it doesn't give us the right to say that other people are wrong regarding their views in sexuality--because we cannot be sure that our idea is right in the first place.

    "Hey mister!"

    "What is it Billy?"

    "You're shying away from the topic."

    "What do you mean?"

    "Where talking about the continuum of human sexuality here and you go on and on like a pendant with a black board and some chalk.."

    "Oh screw you Billy!"


    "Bite me!"

    Sorry if this took too long. In case you haven't noticed, my main point is to defy the notion that homosexuality doesn't exist in terms of semantics. I did not set myself to invalidate the fact of a continuum regarding sexuality. In fact, I think I like the idea myself (although I still need to figure out things--by the way Brian, where are your sources? Hahaha).

    I humbly infer that this post isn't about the labels, but about how we should break the boundaries of these labels and see sexuality as it really is: sexuality. Period. And with that, I'd made my point. There's such a thing as Homosexuality. I do agree with you though, There should not be such a thing as Homosexuality, Heterosexuality or Bisexuality.

    Let sex be sex.

    (And oh, sorry, sorry, sorry for the length of this comment.. I took "Typapills" halfway while writing these.. Damn prescription drugs!)