ram at mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>Joshu (rh22384 at swt.edu) wrote:
>>I doubt that the "either/or" categorization of homosexuals into
>>"either" nurture "or" nature will serve any better function than to
>>continue our delusion that we as humans are "either" heterosexual "or"
>>homosexual.
>>Do you have any evidence to this hypothesis? Are you denying the
>existance of a certain subset of humans that are "either" heterosexual
>"or" homosexual? It is this subset we're interested in (for now).
What I am suggesting is that we are sexual. for example, juxtaposed with
the bipolar model, which is the result of dichotomous thinking, a model
which may more closely describe the reality of human sexuality was
proposed by Kinsey: the continuum model of sexuality. I would NOT assert
that there does not exists a subset of humans who are "either" homosexual
"or" heterosexual. However, like Kensey and so many others have
suggested is that the subset of people who are "either" homosexual "or"
heterosexual is only 6% in either case with 88% of people falling in a
continuum of categories with ambisexuality ("bisexuality") seerving as
the midrange point. Along the continuum, according to Kensey, the
greates number on a bell curve fall somewhere between bisexual and
heterosexual.
This whole business of "either" homosexual "or" heterosexual is a social
construction. We have let our dualistic tail of language wag the dog.
>>culture there is such a strong reaction formation to our universal
>>homoerotic inclinations that, when we THINK about our condition, confined
>>as it is within a Cartisian dualistic paradigm, our fear drives us to
>>pigeon-hole sexual phenomena to some distant taboo island, where "either"
>>"those" people are homosexual "or" not, "either" genetically determined
>>"or" not, "either" free to choose "or" not, "either" oriented "or" not,
>>"or" "either" preferenced "or" not.
>>Is this some sort of a Freudian analysis? I don't see where you get
>the "fear" from.
No it is not Freudian. It is more of an "existential" analysis, in
Western terms. Actually, it is more technically correct to refer to the
energy working to produce "reaction formation" as *anxiety*, rather than
fear, though anxiety is certainly a form of fear. BTW, "reaction
formation" IS a psychodynamic defense mechanism defined by the
Freudians. It it is useful for our purpose here to explaining the Western
cultural phenomenon of "Homophobia." I submit that that since we are NOT
generally "either" heterosexual "or" homosexual, but are simply sexual,
that the *anxiety* produced by the *conflict* between the extant
homoerotic impulses in 94% of humans (cf. Kinsey) and the Post-Victorian
taboo against our nautral sexual urges is channeled into the "formation"
of negative cognitions directed against our *natural inclinations* as a
controlling "reaction" - thus the term reaction formation, the defense
mechanism employed by those given to the heterosexist delusion of bipolar
sexual identity.
What would you say if such a dualistic question was
>posted by a bisexual?
>
I would say that that person probably feels *compelled* by his/her
anxiety to submit to the dualistic model of bipolar sexuality. This
anxiety is created by the conflict, described above, between the reality
of ambisexual inclinations and the social construction that dictates the
exclusionary choice of socially perscribed alternatives.
>But really, I don't think any clear cut answer will come out of asking
>"either" "or" in all cases. But I do think clear-cut answers, that
>for a subset of a population describe such categorisation, are
>possible.
..Yes, as Kinsey suggested, the subset of the population with such a
"clear cut" orientation is %6 on "either" end of the continuum.
Thank you for asking for clarification. You give me a chance to
illucidate on the same topic which is a favorite of Gore Vidal.
- Joshu
* gasho *
