[net.motss] A thought on the nature of homosexuality

gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (06/10/84)

> From: cher@ihuxi.UUCP Mike Musing* (ihuxi!cher)
> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
> 
>                                  Homosexuality appears to be a perversion
> (no negative or any other connotation here) of one of the basic human
> instincts. Object of the sexual drive (and its ultimate purpose) differs
> from original.
> I am *not* discussing need for love (communication), just the sex aspect.
> Since the original nature of a basic impulse is superceded, the phenomenon
> in question seems to be similar to some eating deviations (anorexia, bulimia,
> overall reverse direction of digestive tract movements).


BF Skinner makes an interesting comment about sexuality in his
book "Notebooks" (pg 331):

	"... Heterosexual behavior is closely related to contingencies
of survival, but natural could not be too specific.  Strong personal
affection, various forms of sexual stimulation, and possibly some
built-in susceptibilities to particular visual forms and particular
modes of stimulation -- these are about the closest nature could come.
But they produce homosexual and autosexual behavior, which are not
otherwise related to survival.

	"For an anatomical parallel, compare the male breast.  No
great harm done and possibly safer in preserving the genes responsible
for the female breast."

What he is saying is, the behavioral system is set up to
encourage sexual behavior, but it is not specific enough to say how
that behavior should manifest itself.  Clearly it is sufficient
that enough individuals reproduce for the species to survive, and
not that every indidual should take part in reproduction, and
certainly "no great hard" is done there!

Your assumption that sexual behavior MUST be a means to reproduce
suggests that masturbation and birth control are also perversions.
I do not agree.

[ PS -- where is net.psych when we need it? ]

rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (06/13/84)

I ought to know better than answer useless homophobic wool-gathering
like Mike Musing's, but....

Here's a thought: has it struck you that your message is like asking
blacks to tell you about their genetic inferiority or Jews about their
incorrigible avarice (or taste for the blood of Christian children)?

Maybe your message relates to an aspect of heterosexuality other than
FUN: namely, that privilege (assumed heterosexuality) is the mother
of vulgarity.

						Cheers,
						Ron Rizzo