Eric linked me this fascinating read which has several interesting bits about bisexuality specifically, and the potential evolution of human sexuality as a whole.
The possibility that everyone is born with the potential to experience both same-sex and opposite-sex attraction is borne out by the anthropologists Clelland Ford and Frank Beach in their pioneering study, Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965). They examined dozens of tribal-based societies all over the world, including many where homosexual relations were common and accepted. In some, all young men went through a period of homosexuality as part of their rite of passage to manhood, and then later switched to heterosexuality and got married. Ford and Beach concluded that human sexuality was predisposed to bisexuality and that a person’s subsequent sexual orientation was largely the product of social learning and expectation: “Men and women who are totally lacking in any conscious homosexual leanings are as much a product of cultural conditioning as are the exclusive homosexuals who find heterosexual relations distasteful and unsatisfying. Both extremes represent movement away from the original, intermediate condition which includes the capacity for both forms of sexual expression”.
..thus reinforcing the idea that sexuality is in fact not binary, and that it is perfectly natural for a majority of people to engage in various sexual activities with the same gender — diluting the impact of the gay stereotype in association with homosexual behavior.
These insights suggest that if society ended its favouritism towards straightness and its chastisement of gayness, same-sex desire would, since it is an intrinsic human potentiality, be much more widespread. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a higher proportion of the population would be lesbian and gay. More likely, bisexuality would become the norm, and the prevalence of both exclusive heterosexuality and exclusive homosexuality would diminish.
I see this as a good thing. Call me a homophobe if you wish, but I do not find stereotypical gay men in any way appealing, sexually or otherwise. This distaste is not borne of any self-hatred, but of contempt for those who let themselves be so easily defined by others. As I told John, I try not to be definable with a single word — be it “fag”, “geek”, “emo” or what have you. To consider oneself gay or bisexual does not necessitate that you adhere to the applicable stereotypes. Though many people do, even if only subconsciously, and that irritates me greatly.
Adherence to negative stereotypes helps to perpetuate them and give them value. It doesn’t make me a homophobe to look down upon homosexuals (declared or otherwise) who are walking manifestations of a negative stereotype. By not adhering to it myself, I am helping to defeat it as an inaccurate label of homosexuals, whereas they are proponents of it and make it more difficult for me to fight it.
Patrick says..
dude
people should just be who they are
and not worry about stereotypes
for the realz
..which I am afraid is a bit silly. “Who they are” is imaginary. Our self is not determined in the womb, it is a culmination of our upbringing and interactions with society. We do have free will to determine who we become (as inferred by “interactions with society.”) Part of this interaction involves stereotypes — either learning from them in attempts to defeat them, or adhering to and propagating them.
3 comments ↓
Incredibly well said. You’ve obviously thought about this quite a bit. I especially like your last point because it really made me step back and think about my own opinions on the topic of self. I have undoubtedly said things that are very similar (in spirit) to Patrick’s last quote, and wholeheartedly meant them at the time. In retrospect, what I probably meant was something much more along the lines of “who cares what other people think of you, as long as you’re happy?”, or “make decisions based on what you yourself desire.”
I personally don’t put so much weight on whether something is stereotypical or not. I think there are probably stereotypes that are not actually wholly negative. (I can think of several examples, but because I don’t personally belong to them, it feels wrong for me to use them as examples.) Ah! Maybe a good example is the “geek” stereotype. Clearly there are those who think geekdom is totally stupid, but of course I completely disagree. And I think it would be silly for me (or you) to make decisions — any decisions — based on the perception of that stereotype by you, or anyone else.
All this is not to say we shouldn’t be aware of stereotypes when we make decisions about ourselves. And that, I think, is the point of what you are getting at. Everything we do informs opinions of our “self”, both the opinion that we have of ourselves, and also the opinions others have of our “selves”. We should attempt to be conscious of those opinions, both to try and be the person we want to be intellectually, and also to try to minimize the damage we do to other individuals in our society. (My opinions about how we cannot really avoid damaging other individuals, and how we can really only do our best to avoid that damage are probably subject enough for another blog post entirely.) Anyway, self-consciousness is key. Self-awareness, and a constant attempt to improve our own self-worth. Of course, too much self-awareness borders on self-obsession and narcissism, but I think that’s part of being a poet… and probably part of being an intellectual. (Note that I’m proud to be associated with both of these stereotypes, for better or worse.)
It occurs to me I didn’t really address how this all relates to the homosexual stereotype. I guess I think that there is a probably a difference between a stereotype as self-defined and a stereotype as used to define “other” groups of people. I think the important part of the definition of stereotype is that of an oversimplification, or generalization, regardless of whether you have personal experience with that group.
I think that our negative stereotypes are probably (ridiculously) set in stone. Every time we meet someone gay, we should be updating that model (stereotype) of what we think it means to be gay. Enough exposure, and the stereotype should break down as you realize that “gay people are just like everybody else!”. Of course it’s possible for this to happen, but somehow, that stereotype is often still there, and you either think of the people you’ve met as the exception, or maybe you think that the negative stereotype is the exception. Does this mean it’s not useful (or even harmful) to generalize about gay people, ie stereotype them? Possibly. I don’t really know anymore. I would have said no just a few minutes ago, but now I’m not sure.
Interestingly, you yourself are talking about stereotypical homosexual men in quite a negative light. I wonder if you met enough gay men who didn’t adhere to that stereotype if you would have written this post differently? I would be interested in reading more about what you consider to be the standard traits of “stereotypical gay men”. I’d also be willing to bet money that I know quite a few who do not fit the profile…
[…] has written an incredibly well thought-out blog post about stereotypes, and I ended up writing quite a bit in the comments. You should follow the link above and read his […]
Leave a Comment