***This is not a homophobic question so please don't kick me out.
By natural, I do not mean does it occur in nature. Clearly it does since it occurs in us, and pointing at lions or bonobos as proof adds no more information than we already knew about ourselves.
Still, is it natural? How do we define natural? There are a lot of things that occur in nature that we don't consider natural: An animal with two heads. A set of conjoined twins. Down's Syndrome. Is homosexuality among them?
I want to be clear, I'm not asking if homosexuality is a bad thing, or whatever other negative connotations you want to imply from my question.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Does it occur in nature? Yes. Is it normal, which seems to be the question you are really asking? That depends on whether you are talking about frequency or trying to argue from psychology, there are many infrequent behaviors that aren't considered to be abnormal psychologically, so what are you really asking?
I guess the main issue I have is when people try to make homosexuality seem as normal as heterosexuality. Which is a difficult position to defend it turns out. That being said, since the consensus these days is that homosexuality is not a choice, meaning they were born with those inclinations, I asked the question is it natural. But if you want to take the behavioral approach, then the question would be, is homosexuality normal?
Well, being heterosexual myself, I really wouldn't know what homosexuality was like personally. This rather means that all I have to go by is demographics and behavioral psychology, so I would have to frame an argument from those, is that something you would be interested in hearing?
Yeah I don't mind having that discussion. I'm currently taking Abnormal Psychology at my University, and there's a very small section on homosexuality unfortunately, so it doesn't say much other than the basics. What I do know is that is listen among other abnormal behaviors such as fetishes, paraphilia and whatever else people do with their sexuality.
So it makes sense to me that based on this homosexuality is categorized as abnormal behavior. However that's an unpopular opinion to have. In public, unless you address homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality then you're intolerant.
"Yeah, I don't mind having that discussion."
Sounds good, then. I just wanted to be certain before we launched a discussion that might take up a lot of space.
"I'm currently taking Abnormal Psychology at my University, and there's a very small section on homosexuality unfortunately, so it doesn't say much other than the basics."
It really can't, as it pertains to attraction and sexual preferences, which aren't entirely understood. It is actually a very difficult thing to get to the bottom of, as participants in studies aren't always that forthright, and the community is afraid that very much study will spark controversy about discrimination. It is actually kind of sad, as more information and understanding would likely help dispel much of the confusion and misconception surrounding the topic.
"What I do know is that is listen among other abnormal behaviors such as fetishes, paraphilia and whatever else people do with their sexuality."
Sadly, other than some extreme fetishes and unsavory practices, it is kind of silent on the subject. Thankfully, it isn't completely silent, and one can glean much from precisely what it doesn't say.
"So it makes sense to me that based on this homosexuality is categorized as abnormal behavior."
There are, what, about four percent who admit to being LBGT? Even if I double that number to account for people who don't want to admit it, it is still below ten percent, that isn't exactly equal to heterosexuals by any means. One in eleven or twelve isn't exactly uncommon, either, though. I would make an analogy to something equally prevalent, but I fear it would be considered a category error, and be seen as homophobic or hateful.
"However that's an unpopular opinion to have. In public, unless you address homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality then you're intolerant."
Well, it isn't exactly the same, statistically. Psychologically, there isn't much to suggest that its origin is that different from any other attraction of preference. I have a type myself, if you know what I mean, and that preference may well be shared by an equally disproportionate demographic of the total population.
Note: I for one don't entirely buy that it is genetic and people are simply born that way, which is also an unpopular view. I view it as an amalgamation of psychological factors that are simply not well understood. I think the genetic argument is a knee-jerk reaction to people saying it is a choice, and I don't agree that it is a conscious choice either, I think it is far more complicated than that.
"There are, what, about four percent who admit to being LBGT? Even if I double that number to account for people who don't want to admit it, it is still below ten percent, that isn't exactly equal to heterosexuals by any means......"
-That's the thing about abnormal psychology. The best thing we have as a guide for what is abnormal, is to measure it against the majority. Heterosexuality is the majority, therefore it is normal behavior, and LBGT is the minority, therefore it is abnormal behavior.
-That definition runs into problems, and the book does address that. Suppose the whole next generation are all randomly right handed, but there is one individual that is left handed. He is abnormal, but not necessarily have anything wrong. He doesn't need medication to remove his left handedness, etc.
-Homosexuals usually cling to that idea. That sexuality is the same thing as being right handed or left handed.
"That's the thing about abnormal psychology. The best thing we have as a guide for what is abnormal, is to measure it against the majority. Heterosexuality is the majority, therefore it is normal behavior, and LBGT is the minority, therefore it is abnormal behavior."
True, it is abnormal statistically, but you won't find much about it in psychology because even if it is unusual, it isn't considered a clinical or maladaptive diagnosis. While it may not be the "norm", so to speak, it also isn't considered to be a disorder or issue in daily life.
"That definition runs into problems, and the book does address that. Suppose the whole next generation are all randomly right handed, but there is one individual that is left handed. He is abnormal, but not necessarily have anything wrong. He doesn't need medication to remove his left handedness, etc."
Indeed, this is why though it can be considered abnormal behavior, it is not a major focus in psychology.
"Homosexuals usually cling to that idea. That sexuality is the same thing as being right handed or left handed."
It would seem to be more complicated than that, but I wouldn't conflate them. Changing someones dominant hand is both easier and more successful than changing their sexual orientation.
"Indeed, this is why though it can be considered abnormal behavior, it is not a major focus in psychology."
-Maybe, but my book does go into great detail about cross-dressers, which seems to me a far less trivial behavior than homosexuality. I also want to point out that fetishes are defined as a sexual focus for an object. If an object can make you aroused, and it's considered abnormal, there really isn't that much of a difference from that to same sex attraction. Clearly humans can have sexual attraction for anything on earth. So I don't see homosexuality as the exception. But I don't know, those are just my thoughts.
"Maybe, but my book does go into great detail about cross-dressers, which seems to me a far less trivial behavior than homosexuality."
I find them both pretty damn trivial, one is just more obvious than the other.
"I also want to point out that fetishes are defined as a sexual focus for an object.
It is a bit more than that, or my wife would be a fetish.
"If an object can make you aroused, and it's considered abnormal, there really isn't that much of a difference from that to same sex attraction."
Well, I would avoid conflating an object with a human being, as that is the same type of category error I discussed previously.
"Clearly humans can have sexual attraction for anything on earth."
I would have phrased this a little differently, as it implies that any of us could suddenly start finding three-legged sheep attractive for no apparent reason, and that appears patently false.
"So I don't see homosexuality as the exception. But I don't know, those are just my thoughts. "
I don't know, it is different than many of the fetishes and behaviors you deal with in abnormal psychology, as it deals with consensual non-hazardous copulation, presumably between two adults.
I believe that homosexuality is a natural instinct that kicks in with denser populations or socio-economic unrest. Your mention of animals observed in acts of homosexuality in situations of population over-crowding is a superb example.
In greater populated areas, there will be a greater percentage of individuals identifying as homosexual, and fewer in more rural areas, which explains the misunderstanding and contempt that "country folk" have for homosexuality, or the stereotype of the gay city slicker. That is not to say that gay individuals come from exclusively larger cities, as some don't, just that, statistically speaking, they "tend to" and also to gravitate towards them. This has an added advantage of enlarging the dating pool for their sexual-preference minority.
Alternatively, environments where there are too few options to finding a sexual partner, such as prisons or zoos, could also encourage homosexuality.
I do not believe that people are born gay, necessarily, but I also do not believe that people who have fully embodied a gay lifestyle can or should change, as the greater social psychological forces at play are usually greater than any individuals control or scope of consciousness.
Homosexuality is rooted several factors;
Firstly and most obviously, people always tend to have more in common and get along better with members of the same sex. This is observed when guys tend to have more guy friends, and women tend to have more female friends. It is reasonable to assume that a person might partly rationalize their homosexuality as generally feeling more comfortable with the same sex, although this is natural for everyone.
Secondly, the expression of sexuality tends to be a learned personality trait. This is why, stereotypically speaking, little boys are encouraged to play with masculine toys such as trucks and play sports while little girls are encouraged to play with feminine toys such as dolls and participate in things like pageants and cheer leading. Reversing such gender rolls is generally frowned upon, although, when asked, most care takers probably couldn't give you a straight answer why. However, if people are not sexualized from an early age by their parents or peers, they tend to remain more gender neutral, and may grow up back-rationalizing that they are somehow "different". As people tend to desire a feeling of uniqueness and individuality, this associated sexuality can very easily become a trait one identifies with in order to establish their unique self-image. Many gay people associate their homosexuality with "who they are" as opposed to just something they happen to like or do.
The after-effect of the feminist movement has meant a general suppression of masculine culture and could also mean that more boys are being brought up in a gender neutral environment, which may explain the surge of current homosexual culture, although homosexuality itself has been in a constant state of ebb and flow throughout history.
Thirdly, learning how to attract a mate is also a learned skill. If you don't believe me, just check out "The Game" by Neil Strauss. Some people are better at "game" or have more interest in it than others, creating a highly competitive dating environment that can open the gateway towards alternative means of sexual expression and specialized interests, so to speak.
Furthermore, people tend to back-rationalize and form solidified personal beliefs based on past behaviors and experiences. It is not unreasonable to assume that many people believe they are gay simply because their first exposure to sex or sexual encounters were with the same sex and they enjoyed it. This is especially reasonable considering that young teens often feel the need to explore and talk about their budding sexuality together with a best friend, who is usually a member of their sex. Older teens or twenty-somethings may also "experiment" with the same sex. Classical conditioning may also play a role in solidifying homosexual personality traits, by associating same-sex pheromones during acts of sexual pleasure, thereby creating future triggers towards same-sex attraction, or learning to embody certain behavioral traits in order to better attract a mate and etc.
I am fascinated with stories of people "coming out" or of how they "discovered" or "found out" they were gay, as they will almost always follow the patterns outlined above often without being consciously aware of it. While I do not believe that people are born gay, necessarily, such a generalized belief may play a role in encouraging others to be more tolerant.
The difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality is not as black and white as people make it out to be. If people are open minded enough, it is just as easy to assume that, as we all have the same basic physiology and nerve endings in the same places, that both heterosexual and homosexual sex can feel equally as arousing and satisfying.
It has been suggested in various studies that homosexual people tend to be more intelligent. This makes sense, as more intelligent people might also tend to have the instinct flexibility necessary and be open minded enough to embrace a homosexual lifestyle.
Homosexuality can be explained kind of like the murphy's law applied to sexuality; it happens because it can happen. If only nostrils or ear holes were bigger and had more nerve endings or if there were another pleasurable orifice to the human body, there would probably be another whole sexual preference based on that.
As with everything, homosexuality is not a static state of being. There are plenty of examples throughout history of individuals practicing homosexuality and then, when socio-economic factors change, embracing heterosexuality instead, as did the Roman soldiers openly practicing homosexuality to fulfill their sexual needs while away on the battle front, only to return home to their wives and families, or vice versa.
Homosexuality is natures way of satisfying two objectives, namely, population control, and the innate need for everyone to love and feel loved. So to answer your question, yes homosexuality is "natural".
I might add a bit of a disclaimer; This all may sound like a total overreach on my part, to make such grand assertions, and if it does I apologize, but my words are firmly grounded in my own experiences and personal observations which ring true for me. If you have different views or opinions other than those I've expressed here, by all means feel free to share, as I am apt to remain tolerant and maintain an open mind.
Don't confuse 'abnormal' with 'infrequent'.
Obviously.
There is naturally occurring and then there is conscious choice. I do not think homosexuality is a conscious choice. Therefore, it is naturally occurring. That it differs from heterosexuality and is not normally occurring is not essential to the question. Focusing strictly on whether it is choice driven or otherwise, I have to rationalize it as natural.
Is homosexuality normal?
Why would anyone actually care? Like any other sexual proclivity (excluding those which involve children or any degree of non-consent) it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.
"Why would anyone actually care?"
Precisely. Whether you consider homosexuality "natural" or not is of no consequence. Is it harmful? If not, then whether it is natural or not has no meaningful implication. The answer to such a question would not have practical significance.