I appreciate Orin's response to my post, and I agree that my post is based in some measure on speculation, as claims about people's motives often are. Yet it strikes me as sound speculation.
Recall that one premise of my post (for which I have considerable data) is that there are many people who have bisexual orientation, in the sense that they are attracted at least in some measure to both sexes. Of these, some may engage in purely heterosexual sexual behavior, others in bisexual sexual behavior, and others in purely homosexual sexual behavior. Social pressure, as well as internalized feelings of shame or guilt about homosexuality, may push many of the bisexually oriented into the purely heterosexual sexual behavior category.
Why wouldn't gays and lesbians who think that homosexual behavior is just fine want these people to experiment with homosexual behavior? After all, once some of these people overcome social and personal inhibitions, they may find that they're much happier in same-sex relationships than in opposite-sex relationships. Others may find that they're happier engaging in a mix of such relationships.
If the bisexually oriented person hasn't tried his homosexual side, I would think that many gays and lesbians would think that this is a shame: There must be something that keeps the person from looking into something that might give him or her great happiness. Working to convert a bisexually oriented person from a purely heterosexual behavior pattern that completely ignores the person's heterosexual side to one that is more open to the person's homosexual side -- even if only as an experiment to see how strong that side is -- would, it seems to me, be thought of as a good deed. (It would be seen as an especially unselfish good deed if the work involved destigmatizing homosexuality and making the bisexually oriented feel better about their homosexual side, rather than just having sex with the person directly.)
This is what I was trying to get at by posing the five questions in my original post. My sense of human psychology, based on which I'm speculating about people's intentions, would be that many gays and lesbians do think such conversions (or persuasion or influencing or whatever one may want to call it) are good; and I think the five questions help explain why that might be so.
Orin suggests otherwise: "Most people who encounter social disapproval for their conduct are probably more concerned about ending that stigma than about getting other people to be more like them." But I'm not sure that it quite works that way. Many people who encounter social disapproval for their conduct become especially aware of such disapproval, and especially empathetic of those who are in the same boat. I think to myself (to borrow an example I gave in my earlier post): What if I were a heterosexual in a hypothetical future overwhelming homosexual society, and I had overcome my original shame and fear at experimenting with heterosexuality? I'd think that I'd then want to make sure that other people like me -- including those who are bisexually oriented, but may end up happier in a heterosexual relationship than in a homosexual relationship -- felt comfortable experimenting, too. I'd even urge people who fit that profile to experiment (again, not necessarily with me), just so they can avoid the possible unhappiness of being stuck in relationships that aren't satisfying for them as they could be.
So it seems to me contrary to what I know of human psychology for gays and lesbians not to want the orientationally bisexual / behaviorally purely heterosexual people to convert to a more bisexual or homosexual behavior pattern. It's speculation, but it seems to me likely correct.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Those Who Sincerely Wonder Whether My Posts Are Motivated By Anti-Gay Animus
- Sssh! We're Not Supposed To Be Talking About
- Dangerousness of Male Homosexual Activity:
- One More Final Post on Sexual Conversion:
- Gays and Lesbians and Golf:
- One Last Thought on Conversion and Sexual Orientation:
- Why Wouldn't Gays and Lesbians Want the Bisexually Oriented to Experiment with Homosexual Behavior?
- Response to Eugene's Post on Gay "Conversion":
- Gays and Lesbians Trying to Convert Others to Homosexual Behavior:
Assuming this isn't merely rhetorical, respect for personal autonomy seems a sufficient reason. Many gays, after all, simply want straight society to respect their different sexual orientation; turnabout would not only be fair play but strategically wise.
And from what observation about human psychology do you get this principle of "as for me, so for thee"? I think there are a lot of people who do, in fact, want everyone else to choose the same lifestyle that they have chosen for themselves. But if I may traffic in stereotypes, such people are infrequently gay, and infrequently very tolerant of homosexuality.
IMO, it's not a matter of why "wouldn't" gays and lesbians want people with homsexual sides/feelings to experiment or express themselves. The question is "Why would gays and lesbians want anybody to do anything different at all?" I personally don't care if all my straight friends never go near or even consider a same-sex experience. It would be neat, give us somthing more in common, blah blah, but it is not in any sense of the word a goal, or an effort or anything that I would actively pursue or encourage. There is always a sense of "oh cool" when you find out that someone is on your team, or shares something with you, but the objection people have to your original posty was more of the implied intent of the conversion, that is was something gays and lesbians are actively seeking. The only time gays seek to "encourage" someone to experiment is if we think he's hot. I say that light-heartedly but seriously; building a bigger base isn't something, I think, that most of us are interested in.
This rhetorical question smacks of the stereotype of the promiscuous gay person.
Now I'm familiar with Professor's writings well enough to know that his observations are hardly grounded in that stereotype. But I had to scroll past this post to get to Professor Kerr's response, so I will read that, and then read Professor's response, and then maybe comment again more intelligently.
You must know some gay people, why not just ask them?
And I see nothing wrong with this. If I see a friend have a possible interest in something which I find to be wonderful, why wouldn't I encourage him or her to try it? That is a far cry from going up to friends who have shown NO interest in something, and actively attempting to push it on them.
1. "Why wouldn't gays and lesbians who think that homosexual behavior is just fine want these people to experiment with homosexual behavior?"
2. "If the bisexually oriented person hasn't tried his homosexual side, I would think that many gays and lesbians would think that this is a shame: There must be something that keeps the person from looking into something that might give him or her great happiness."
I thought that my first reaction was a slam dunk!
But Professor is much cleverer.
In one sense, I agree (gasp!) with Professor: Gay people (as a collective) want everyone to feel comfortable engaging in homosexual activity, to the extent each person is comfortable doing so, because if large numbers of people did so, there would be a concomitant reduction in the level of stigma society places on gay people in particular. As the stigma eases, gay and lesbian people are freer to form relationships that give them the most happiness -- even if those relationships would be with other people whose sexual orientation is the same as theirs.
But this does not require an individualized conversion effort (as the Christians believe their religion is to be spread) so much as a societal conversion. Wouldn't it be great to live in a society that tolerates a variety of sexual behaviors? Or in one that, at a minimum, tolerates homosexual activity between consenting adults who exchange no money? Having asked this question, one could understand Lawrence v. Texas as a "conversionary" decision, using that word as Professor has used it earlier today.
However, on the individual level, I can say based on my own experience:
1. I don't want people to do anything they're not comfortable with from the beginning. If you're bisexually oriented, and aware of that orientation, you've done enough thinking about the possibility of same-sex activity to realize your comfort level. I am loathe to perturb that comfort level.
2. Consequently, I don't regard it as a shame that these bisexually oriented people who are uncomfortable with same-sex sexual activity don't engage in that activity. In fact, I don't regard it at all. For me, they are functionally indistinguishable from straights, who I don't seek out as sex partners.
As to these two observations of mine, your own mileage may vary.
Fpr example, bisexual women are frequently treated harshly by the lesbian community for being either "inauthentic" or "traitorous" to the core of the community. CF the movie "Chasing Amy."
I think ultimately this discussion is about behaviors which apply equally to both sides.. I missed the intro (and am busy at work) but I think it's no more accurate to consider homosexuals to be "recruiting" or "prostletyzing" for homosexuality than it is to consider heterosexuals to be doing the same for heterosexuality.
=darwin
That argument rests on the assumption that a person with bisexual tendencies who manifests only heterosexual behavior would increase his or her happiness by manifesting bisexual behavior. I think that this assumption is both false (because of the massive scorn, discrimination, and even violence directed against gays in our society) and totally unlikely to be held by any gay person who would be doing the converting (since they'd have personal experience of said scorn, discrimination, etc.).
It would seem to me, from my admittedly uninformed straight guy perspective, that no gay person who had a compassionate interest in the well being of another who might be engaging in repression of bisexual tendencies would want to inflict the horrible social hatred that gay people get on them.
Being gay is not easy. You have to deal with a lot of hate and a lot of bullshit. People stereotype you from day one. People LOOK at you differently.
Why in the world would I wish anyone to be gay?
If I had a "choice", I dunno what I'd do. It certainly would be easier to be straight. It'd be so much easier if I could just get married and start a family. But I'm not. I'm gay. And it's part of my identity now. And I think it's made me a more interesting person.
But coming out was something I had to do on my own. To each his own.
Then again - I think bisexuality is just a stop on the way to gaydom. At least for 95% of self-proclaimed bisexual men. I have a couple of friends that claim to be bi, so I have an open mind. But it always seems that after a few years, they claim to be 100% gay and then say "what was I thinking".
Even if we were to postulate a multiple-genetic (or prenatal) origin for homosexuality, we would only be pushing the question back a bit. The questions of choice and determination would still be sticky.
Well, this was a total failure. I've seldom been less insulted. I'm sure the authors of "The Bell Cure" thought they were engaging in "sound speculation" as well.
-Josh Jasper
It's kind of like if you liked vanilla and chocolate ice cream - and the vanilla lovers and chocolate lovers kept telling you to "choose" one vs. the other.
So many bisexuals probably choose to date both sexes until they meet one that they want to spend the rest of their life with.
I don't think being gay is genetic. I think it's based on the amount of testosterone in the womb. That's the current scientific thinking. So gays are born with one genetic sex, but their brain can develop as the opposite sex (or towards the opposite sex). So, while not genetic, people are most likely born gay.
Stop making it appear that this debate suddenly came about in 1973. It had been going on since the advent of psychoteraphy. The science is not that old, and the founder (Freud) figured out pretty quickly that being gay was not an illness.
Take your average single, heterosexual man. We'll call him "Bob". Bob finds himself strongly attracted to a woman who has, thus far, only had sex with women. However, after getting to know her Bob becomes fairly convinced that she might be open to trying hetro sex as well. Does anyone honestly believe that Bob isn't going to hit on this woman? I mean, come on -- of course he is. If there's even a chance of a relationship there, Bob's going for it. Wouldn't we all? I know I would, anyway.
So color me skeptical, but I've never seen any indication that gay men are less horny than straight men are. There are social issues that might make a gay version of Bob unwilling to hit on a potentially-bi man, but that doesn't mean Bob wouldn't WANT to.
I want to sleep with Brad Pitt. That doesn't mean I want to convert Brad Pitt to being gay. I realize he's happy in his heterosexuality and I'm fine with just fantasizing about him. And if I found out Brad Pitt was bi, I'd want him to do whatever made him happy.
My only point was that the issue was treated in a political manner. Nobody said, "I did this double-blind prospective study and here are the results". That is why I said that it is a political question as opposed to a scientific question. I make no further implications and as a political question I would not deny any right to any human being that I would not want denied to me.
Depending on how you mean the above statement it could be wrong. Particularly there was recently a study which looked at male arousal when watching explicit movies (porn) that featured either women or men. The measure used was the obvious involuntary response. Initially the subjects were self sorted into Hetero, Bi and Homo sexual. The results were that there was not a single subject that could be qualified as bisexual by this measure, all exhibited a strong prefference for one sex over the other.
Granted human arrousal can be due to many other things than pure physical attraction, which is what I assume you mean in the post. The involuntary responses of women are harder to measure empirically and I'm not aware of any similar research on their bisexual tendencies. So as far as the male population goes I remain unconvinced that there are a substantial number of bisexuals, and even more skeptical that such a smooth transition as you posit could be managed. In my personal experience many bisexuals have a preffered sex for a partner, and while they occasionally will daly with the other sex, it would be extremely difficult to convince them to forgo their sex of choice completely, whereas the converse is not true.
A more detailed discussion of what you mean by bisexual (for example people who are willing to have some relations with their nonpreffered sex vs. people that are indifferent to their partners sex), and the specific conclusions that can be drawn from the data you have could be useful.
But it was also, and often exclusively, about physical pleasure. In my experience, self-identified heterosexual men who have some form of sex with other men often do so simply for sexual release. They know that there is a ready and willing population of men who want to satisfy them, so they take advantage of this without necessarily having any "homosexual" feelings or desire for the male body. This is why I think that it is a mistake to think of heterosexuality and homosexuality as some sort of oppositional subspecies and think of them instead as a range of behaviors, sexual and emotional. I am aware that both the activist gay "community" (whatever that actually is) and the activist anti-gay community has a great vested interest in retaining this essentialist binary system, but I think it has caused so much erroneous thinking on the part of everyone that tries to sort out its twisted logic that it is perhaps time to abandon it. Perhaps that has already begun.
I will add that my experiences are certainly those of a man, and the sexual behavior of men, whatever their "orientation", is going to be different than that of gay and not-gay women, so I don't presume to speak with them. Please forgive my blunt talk about sensual matters, but I did think it germane to the discussion since I have first-hand (no intemperate pun implied) knowledge of this subject.
Not really, if you're planning to have a monogamous relationship. That sort of implies an expectation that your prospective partner will be confining himself to one gender for the forseeable future.
Granted, you might not consider that "coverting someone to homosexuality", since presumably the guy will still feel sexual attraction to women (even if he doesn't act on it). That's a reasonable objection. However, that situation does meet the definition of "converting someone to homosexuality" used by religious conservatives. The difference between "converting from heterosexuality to homosexuality" and "permanently abandoning sex with women in favor of sex with one man" is, from a religious conservative standpoint, pretty much nonexistant.
And if I found out Brad Pitt was bi, I'd want him to do whatever made him happy.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you knew Brad Pitt well enough to want a relatioship with him: sure, you'd want him to be happy. But you'd also want what makes him happy to be, well, *you*. For example, I want Angelina Jolie to be happy. But if I thought I had a shot with her, I would definitely try to convince her that the key to happiness involved lots of mad passionate love with yours truly.
Besides, it isn't like people wear little nametags that say "Hi, I'm totally gay" and "Hello, my name is Entirely Heterosexual". How would anyone ever get laid if they waited to be completely sure of the other person's orientation before even starting to flirt with them.
This makes for a certain incentive to choose the opposite sex, since men are far less likely to avoid relationships with bisexual women than lesbians are. Or at least, such was the case a couple of decades ago, when I was still single.
The question you ask is, why wouldn't gays want bisexuals to experiment with gayness? Simply put, because that's not what the bisexuals want. Most gay people have firsthand knowledge of the harm done by an imposed sexuality, and no reasonable person wants to perpetuate such a thing. Converting a bi person to a homosexual lifestyle, which you think would be a Gay Good Deed, does not help gay people in the long run. it denies the person's reality just as much as the straight world did when it tried to make them straight.
There may be a sense in which non-straight people believe in increased experimentation as a good thing, but it's not the sense in which you think, which seems to be "more homos means more people for me to fuck." An environment in which fluidity and experimentation is permitted is an environment in which it's easier to become and be whatever you are. However, people's circumstances are all different and only an asshole would say this experimentation is an absolute good. Maybe Bob shouldn't explore his sexuality just now, with his wife 8 months pregnant; maybe Jane should wait 6 months until she's out from under her fundamentalist parents' roof. The goal of this approach is not to increase the gayness in the world, but to increase the happiness.
Hmm, perhaps this is where the confusion with religion comes in. Religions think the path to happiness/a better world goes through them, but gay people know that not everyone is gay, and DO NOT SEE gayness as the route to happiness for everyone. Maybe it was for THEM, maybe they think it will be for someone they can see is struggling, but the key word here is "maybe": no convert-seeking religion says "Maybe we're the key to happiness, and maybe not, the decision is yours." If a gay person thinks a bisexual would be happier gay, it's because he thinks that the bi person IS actually gay, and in coming-out-related denial, a not uncommon occurence in the male community This is why gender matters, wrt my first para: in the gay women's community, almost everyone knows or knows of true bisexuals who have made some long-term choice or other, and if the existence of the bisexual is doubted it's usually doubted in the other direction ("She's really straight").
I think you should listen to a few coming out stories to understand where the universality lies in being gay in our culture. It seems that right now you think that its sexuality that unites gay people ("gay people want more gay people in the world"), but the universality is actually in the realization that you are an Other of some kind, and that you have had to deal with that Otherness.
And the premise of your post is detached from reality. Not that Volokh implied gays were more promiscious, but gay males are, generally speaking of course, much more promiscuous. I realize that you may feel any generalization is offensive. More to the point, however, is that Volokh's post has nothing to do with promisciousity (except inasmuch as the person would have to experiment with at least one person). It seems people are going WAY out of their way to read some kind of sinister "underlying premise" into Volokh's recent posts. First, it was "convert" was an unacceptable term. Now several commenters have stated Volokh is guilty of stereotyping homosexuals as promiscuous.
Does this equal "conversion"? That just degenerates into a semantics debate. I think Eugene's point is that the sort of "conversion" described above (which maybe you want to re-term "encouragement") happens, and there's nothing wrong with it if it does.
She has come out as gay, and has finally found some kind of equalibrium and a modicum of happiness (obviously, I am editing a lot out of this story). She owes some of this to the openness, understanding, and support of her gay friends. She as made a 'choice', but the choice was the partner, not the orientation.
In your original post, the only two reasons you listed were anti reasons, based on fear and disapproval. "It thus increases the likelihood that the bisexually-attracted people who would otherwise engage in purely heterosexual relationships (because of fear of social stigma, or because of their own disapproval of their homosexual attraction)...."
Seriously, create the two lists, I think we would all find it educational.
Because if he did, he'd know quite well that the lesbian community, generally speaking, very much disfavors bisexual women "exploring their homosexual side" or "becoming more bisexual." That's seen as dabbling, or trolling for a third party for one's male partner's amusement, or fence-sitting.
Let's also note that an awful lot of gays and lesbians--perhaps the majority--do not believe that bisexuality even exists. Bisexuality is the aforementioned "fence-sitting," or a stage that people who are really gay or lesbian go through due to social pressure and denial, in this view.
Volokh's entire first post was centered on "experimentation," including question #4 where he deduced it was true that all gays would make themselves available for "experimentation" with their questioning friends, as long as they were able to avoid emotional consequences. I assume Volokh does not mean "meet for tea" when he says "experimentation."
When you take off your Halloween costume, are you converting from clownhood?
The biggest problem I see with the whole conversion discussion is confusion over what constitutes conversion. There has been a tendency to mix "invitations" with the concept of conversion. One is a choice given and the other is a form of cohersion.
Re. the turnabout-being-fair-play and respect comment, near the top:
What?
Respect for others' orientations _obviously_ being a hallmark of straight society - just look at the 1950s, when many gays had to be closeted - so clearly the Gay and Lesbian Agenda should include, #5, stop being so open about it all, live and let live?
Pardon me for scoffing; the straight sexual revolution may not have been caused by the sudden de-closeting (or is it re-de-closeting) of gays and lesbians and other fellow travelers in the 20th century, but they're tied together. Suggesting that gays as a whole stop being flamboyant or Out or aggressively sexual - not that all are, but in some sense the Movement was about Liberation and Openness - again, Columbienne, this isn't about categories but about overarching philosophies - is to try to sweep back the tide.
I'd welcome further discussion of this topic over at my blawg; sooner or later someone will have to write a sensible post on sexuality and law. Much has been written, but it's largely lost in the nonsense. Like this series of posts, I might suggest but won't.
The Matthew Shepards of the world surely agree with you. This points up something else that is offensive about the underlying assumptions of the post. It seems to me that for many, many glbt people, sharing one's attraction with a member of the same sex is not a thing to be done lightly, it can be a matter of personal safety in a way that is typically not present in a straight situation. Bruised personal feelings because of a rebuff is not the only thing at stake. IMHO, referring to this very risky, brave and sometimes foolish (that should not be punishable by violence in any event) thing as an attempt at "conversion" is consistent with the mindset that got Matthew Shepard and lots of other gay-bashing victims, bashed.
We know differently. We know that many straight men and women do indeed seek out gays and lesbians to experiment with. We know that many of those "cruising" are in fact straight married men looking for a little something extra. You use us to satisfy your desire for novelty and then, because you are overcome with your shame and guilt, you blame us for your behavior.
You want to keeps us in the closet so that you can keep your dirty little secrets and play one against the other.
Time and time again it has been my experience that it is precisely those who most vehemently react to us who are struggling with their own sexuality. After all, if you are truly straight, why spend so much energy on something that has absolutely no relevance in your life? Unless, of course, it does.
BTW, it is very offensive when you sit there and posit how I think and feel. How I experience my life is not something that you have the slightest inkling about. But then, violating the boundaries of women, gays and blacks comes easy doesn't it? It is just another one of your privileges. One you exercise every single day.
That's a peculiar claim to make, especially considering that, of the major American ethnic groups, Caucasians are the one which the most accepting of homosexuality. It also isn't clear why you think you're saying something shocking or new by pointing out that not all "straight" men are totally straight. That was, if you'll recall, Eugene's initial point -- that lots of people feel some sort of attraction to both sexes.
BTW, it is very offensive when you sit there and posit how I think and feel.
Well, if you find that sort of thing offensive, you should probably refrain from engaging in it yourself. :)
This might get you an 'A' in Marxist Analysis of Human Emotion 101, but how far will it get you in life? Your post indicates a pathetic (my term, and loaded, I know) lack of knowledge of the subject of your opinions. In my experience anyway, and we would all do well to limit our opinions to our own experience when empirical data is lacking, the wealthy, truly priveledged people I know are much more aware and tolerant of each other's quirkiness than the proles, or even well off middle class that I know. Maybe because I don't know the proles as well? I don't know. One thing I do know is that you don't know. Your post is laughable for its seventies era rigid narrow mindedness if nothing else.
Class is real and America's class system is quite ridged. We don't look at it because of the hysteria that lays just beneath. We are taught not to think about such things but they are still there. Just as you acknowledge when you say: "tolerant of each other's quirkiness than the proles".
Boy! if that isn't a classist statement I don't know what is. You found it usefull to talk about class to make your point. Just as I found it usefull to make mine. Just because a concept was put forward by Marx doesn't make it any less usefull in thinking about the world and how it works.
And I am from my own experience dear.