MySpace


Rex

Rex Bennett


Last Updated: 11/18/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 102
Sign: Scorpio

City: Tampa
State: FLORIDA
Country: US
Signup Date: 6/15/2006

Who Gives Kudos:


February 29, 2008 - Friday 

Current mood:  contemplative
Category: Life


(As of 05-26-2009 this blog exceeded 6,000 readers!)

It's unfortunate that there is such a vast ignorance about homosexuality.  There is much confusion out there because people don't know what homosexuality is.  They confuse it with other things.  For instance, they think that homosexuality is about physical sex.  It isn't.  The physical sex follows from the emotional need.  You can be heterosexual and have physical sex with the same gender.  You can be homosexual and have physical sex with the opposite gender.  You can have sex with yourself. Physical sexual desire is controlled by something else entirely.

First,  let me state that there is no "gay gene."  Although homosexuality is caused by genetics, there is no gene associated with it.  There is a gene that directs sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is an  INSTINCT that is hardwired in the brain while the fetus is being formed.  This happens though a process known as "gene expression." It helps to think of the DNA as being a giant strand of computer code.  During gene expression, the division and specialization of cells take place during the forming of the fetus or zygote,  the DNA and the RNA work together to express the code chemically.  The DNA is the set of instructions; the RNA is the factory that produces the necessary proteins for the next step of the code.  The IF-THEN statements of the computer code are controlled by the protein sequence.  We tend to think of genes as "static."  They are anything but that.  All genes are "dynamic."  That is they are turned ON and OFF thousands or millions of times during zygote formation.  It is the combination of the gene ON/OFF sequences taken together that form the next leg of the construction process.  The proteins needed for each step amount to only one or two molecules. These molecules form the next step in the computer code expression.  You see, the DNA is not the total computer code itself.  It instructs the RNA to produce the protein molecules that form the next step of the code.  So the construction of actual code is being manufactured (or written) each step along the way.  This is what is known as "gene expression."

Now, to make it easily understandable, I am going to give you a massively simplified explanation of how this happens.  I am going to write as though the DNA process is a cognitive thought process.  It isn't.  There is no consciousness involved.  But there is intelligence that is built into the DNA and into the cell.  That intelligence is expressed chemically.  Your body is one ultra complex chemical factory.  That's what life is - a complex series of electro-chemical processes.  So, now, let me give you a simplified explanation you can easily understand.  While I am doing this, I am going to make this hypothetical mother have identical twins.  There is a reason for that. It will help you to understand the process.

A mother's egg is fertilized by a single sperm cell and the genetic code of the two (they each have 1/2 the code) is combined into a completely new strand of DNA.  This DNA has all the instructions from the mother and all the instructions from the father, and based on a complex process of recessive and dominate genes, particular attributes are going to be selected over others so that the individual that will be born will have features of both the mother and the father.  That individual will be unique from the parents.  This fertilization forms a new cell from those of the mother.  This cell begins to divide.  Each time it divides, it forms new DNA for the nucleus of each cell. While splitting, these two cells accidentally split completely apart where they are no longer touching.  So now, we have two completely separate cells that have identical DNA right down to the very last molecule.  There is zero difference between them.  Now, because of that, you would think there would be zero difference between the end process - the two babies.  But that is not the case.  These two babies will not be entirely identical.  They will have many differences.  Why is that?  Gene expression will change their code that constructs their physical body.

At first, they are globs of undifferentiated cells.  Very quickly, due to gene expression, they will begin to differentiate into all the cell types (bone, blood, tissue) that make up the human body, and they will do this in a specific sequence.  Now these two fetuses are going to be boys for the sake of this demonstration.  The fetus begins to form and different organs begin to appear.  Also external physical features begin to differentiate (hands, fingers, head, legs, feet, etc.). Early on, each fetus will be female.  All fetuses will have nipples, but those nipples will only be useful if the fetus remains a female. The DNA code decides (if-then sequence) that this fetus will become a male. It then begins a series of sequences that begin to form a male pelvis, male genitalia, male brain (there are slight difference between the male and female brain), male breasts, and other features specific to males.  It sends instructions to the RNA that produces the minute amounts of proteins that form the next step of the  code that determines how this fetus will be constructed.  So now we have two very healthy male fetuses.  Now another series of sequences is constructing the brain and forming its internal structure.  The gene expression process looks at the information that says this is to be a male.  The if-then process decides that it must have a male "gender identification instinct."  This instinct lies dormant until 5 to 6 years of age and then turns on.  At 5 to 6 years of age, the child will identify itself as either male or female. Depending on how it identifies itself, its behavior will begin to differentiate based on its self-identification.  In very small numbers, certain DNA sequences are changed in the gene expression process because a protein failed to be produced by the RNA, or a single atom at the end of the molecule is missing.  It will no longer match up in the gene expression sequence and as a result, the gene will be either turned on or off incorrectly.  So instead of a "male gender identification instinct" the infant will have a female gender identification instinct.  At six years of age, it will begin behaving as a female.  This is a transgendered child.  There is nothing you can do.  This person will forever identify himself as a female trapped in a male body.  Once the child reaches puberty, he will have psychological problems as a result of conflict between culture and self-identification. This only happens infrequently, but in a nation of 300 million people, it becomes numerous enough to become noticeable.  But in our case, both these male fetuses are coded correctly and will end up with male identification instincts. (Note that instincts are behavioral instructions that are hardwired into your brain. It is almost impossible to overcome an instinct.  Trying to change a behavior can psychologically damage an individual.)

But both these male fetuses have male identification instincts.  The next step in the process determines again that the fetus is a male, and gives the instruction to produce a "male sexual orientation instinct."  This means that the male will desire females once he reaches puberty.  Actually, this instinct also is dormant until 5 to 6 years of age and turns on.  Children can become aware of their sexual preference as early as six years of age.  Instincts control EMOTIONS, and it is the emotional structure of the individual that is affected, not the physical sexual desire.  Physical sexual desire is actually non-differentiated.  It follows emotional desire.  That is why you can easily have physical sex with a member of the opposite gender, or with the same gender, or with no gender (with yourself.)  You can even have sex with a plastic doll.  The physical sexual instinct (which is activated by sex hormones) does not care HOW one has sex.  It only wants physical sexual release.  Masturbation suits it just fine.  Your physical sexual desire does not determine you sexual orientation.

In the case of these two male fetuses, one receives the correct protein sequence and receives a sexual orientation instinct which will cause his sexual orientation to relate emotionally to females.  The other receives protein instructions that cause him to have a sexual orientation that will be directed at other males.  This is emotional. Let me state this again - this is emotional.  It is a fundamental part of the emotional structure of the individual - one that he CANNOT CHANGE.  Physically, he can try not to have sex with other males, but sex with females will NEVER satisfy him emotionally.  It will be similar to masturbation.  It will give him physical sexual release, but it will never give the emotional satisfaction that his brain needs to relate properly to the world.  He will become unhappy and miserable if he never has a sexual emotional relationship with another male.

Now these two identical twins are born and later the brothers become featured naked in Playgirl Magazine.  Standing side by side, you discover that these two identical twins (although they look remarkably alike) are not exactly "identical."  They began life with IDENTICAL DNA, but the gene expression produced uniquely different individuals. Now you look closely at the two standing side-by-side naked and you notice that one has a slightly broader face than the other even though they weigh the same. One of the twin brothers is one inch to one-and-one-half inches taller than the other.  And then you gasp!!  One has a penis that is almost twice the size of the other brother's.  How can this be?  Gene expression.  Their internal organs can also be different.  But  - one of the twin brothers is heterosexual and the other is homosexual.  They began with absolutely identical genetic code right down to the last molecule.  They shared the very same womb.  The mother gave both the same hormones, the same nourishment, the same formation conditions.  They have the same parents, live in the same house, experience the same parental behaviors, have the same friends, and are always together. They go to the same schools, wear the same clothes, eat the same foods, get the same amount of exercise, are exposed to the same chemicals in their food and the air they breathe.  Their is nothing about their environment that is/was different, and yet there are physical differences and one is straight and the other is gay.  Emotionally, they relate to the opposite gender and to the same gender DIFFERENTLY.

What is sexual orientation?  You can say it is attraction to a specific gender, but that is misleading.  It is much more than that.  It is an INSTINCT that affects how your brain relates to the world.  You have no control over this.  You can change your PHYSICAL BEHAVIOR, but that will not alter your psychological relationship to the world.  The fact is that you can quite easily have physical sexual relations with members of the opposite gender, the same gender, and with no gender (with yourself.) These sexual relations will feel good.  You will have orgasms.  You will enjoy the human relationship.  You can even become addicted to sex with members of the opposite gender or the same gender and want to do it frequently.  However, if you disobey your sexual orientation instinct, all you will ever receive is physical pleasure and physical release.  The physical sexual instinct will be satisfied and will give you physical sexual satisfaction.  But there is something more important that you will NEVER receive.  You will never receive EMOTIONAL SEXUAL SATISFACTION.  If you obey your sexual orientation instinct, you will receive a DOUBLE ORGASM simultaneously.  The first is the physical orgasm which is how your physical sexual instinct rewards you.  The second is a BRAIN ORGASM which is how your sexual orientation instinct rewards you.  It will not reward you unless you obey its instructions.  If you have sex according to its instructions, at the moment of physical orgasm, you brain will be flooded with endorphins, dopamine, oxytocin, and other brain chemicals.  The oxytocin will cause you to "bond" emotionally with your sex partner. The endorphins will remove all sensations of pain and give you a "floating" experience.  You will feel "one with the universe."  The dopamine will go to the pleasure centers of your brain and will vastly intensify the sensations of your physical orgasm and will give you and overall pleasurable feeling and feeling of well-being.  This is something very important psychologically that you cannot receive unless you have sex with the gender that your sexual orientation instincts instructs you too.

Now a word about homophobia.  Some people do not realize that  homophobia is not normal.  It is abnormal behavior that has a specific cause going back in history. Most people assume they know what homophobia is, but they are usually wrong.  You should be aware that homophobia did not always exist.  In human history, it is a relatively new phenomenon.  It has two specific causes, and both are due to religions evolving from Judaism.  What I am about to tell you is not an attack against any religion, it is an explanation about a phenomenon that came about due to specific historical events.  First, what is homophobia?

Ask anyone on the street, and they are likely to tell you it is the fear of homosexuals, or the fear of homosexuality.  This isn't true.  Homophobia is the fear of being associated with homosexuality one's self.  For many generations, a stigma was attached to homosexuality for religious reasons.  Humans are herd animals.  We don't like to think of ourselves that way but, in fact, we are.  We have herd instincts just as all herd animals.  One of the greatest fears of any herd animal is rejection by the herd.  In most herd animals, rejection by the herd means death.  In humans, rejection by the herd also meant death up until modern society with big cities and human anonymity.

Humans depend on each other for survival.  That's why we form societies and why we have cities.  In the Middle Ages, if you were excommunicated, it meant slow death. People could not associate with you in any way, nor feed you, nor help you.  Eventually, without social help, you would die.  You could not trade or engage in commerce, and as a result, you could not provide for your needs.  Eventually, you would perish.  That's why excommunication was so greatly feared by everyone.


The stigma against homosexuality until very recent times was quite strong.  Anyone accused of homosexuality was ostracized.  They were looked upon with shame. Others would not want to associate with them for fear that people would think the same of them.  Those that did associate were ridiculed.  The social penalty for homosexuality was severe.  So the fear of being associated with homosexuality one's self grew.  You had the development of "macho behaviors" as a way of demonstrating that one was heterosexual.  In some societies, men developed machismo, which is an aggressively manly behavior as a way to say "look at me, I'm a macho heterosexual male who hates homosexuals."  There is one problem with that.  Humans are by nature omni-sexual beings.  This behavior is found among many higher species and most importantly in all primates.  A human can be sexually attracted not only to the opposite gender, but to very attractive members of their own gender.  This is very natural behavior, but in those who have deep-seated fears of ostracism it can become psychologically destructive.  Homophobes are unaware that being attracted occasionally to attractive members of their own gender is something completely normal.  It happens to everyone.  They will notice their own attraction and fear that they, themselves, have homosexual tendencies.  Because they have a strong instinct regarding the fear of rejection or ostracism, this causes psychological trauma and a need to prove to themselves and to others that they are NOT homosexual.  This leads them to aggressive behavior against anyone they believe may be homosexual.  It mostly leads to vocal attacks as a herd demonstration of their own rejection of homosexuals, but it can also lead to physical violence.  But where did this "identification" of homosexuals come from?  When did people start fearing being identified with homosexuality one's self?  Did it always exist?  History and literature tells us clearly NO.  It began at a specific point in history and was spread all over the planet.  Prior to that, homophobia did not exist anywhere on the planet.  It did not exist in China, Japan, or other areas of Asia.  It did not exist in India, in the Middle East, in Africa,  in Asia Minor, nor in Europe.  It did not exist among natives in the Americas and it did not exist in Polynesia.  If you read the ancient literature of these geographic areas you will find that homosexual sex was praised along with heterosexual sex.  As a matter of fact, the concept "homosexuality" did not exist until the time of Sigmund Freud.
  All sex was considered natural.  Some preferred one kind more than others.

Although homophobia did not develop at this time, the seeds of homophobia were sewn by the Hebrews when they decided to become a nation state and needed to vastly increase their population of Hebrews.  Hebrews did not want to mix with other ethnic groups and did not want to grow by assimilation of outside peoples, but to grow the numbers of pure Hebrews.  This interbreeding and association with other ethnic groups had serious implications regarding the stability of their religion.  They wanted their religion to be pure and their people to be "pure."  Where all other cultures readily adsorbed outside groups, Hebrews sought purity and ethnic isolation.  This meant that their population had to expand from within, and the only way to accomplish this was by breeding restrictions.  Any child born out of wedlock had a very poor chance of survival.  Only if they had a father who accepted them as a legimate offspring would the father protect, feed, and care for the child.  Lineage was vitally important to the passing of property from one generation to another.  As a result, the Hebrews passed draconian sex laws that had never existed in any other society prior to them. Only procreative sex within marriage was allowed.  All other forms of sex were forbidden and punishable by death - a very harsh penalty for disobeying the law.  These doctrines were incorporated into their religious literature.  It is far easier to have people police themselves due to religious convictions than to have soldiers standing over people's beds.  And thus the Hebrew sex laws were born and sanctified by religious practices.  Their religion controlled their lives, and failure to abide by religion could cause people to be ostracized by the community or even stoned to death.  Stoning was a very painful and slow way to die.

The following forms of sex were outlawed and punishable by death:  Adultery. This was due to the importance of inheritance of property.  A man could be verbally rebuked for adultery and even ostracized by the group.  But women were stoned to death, a practice that continues in many Islamic countries today.  Onanism. Any non-procreative spilling of one's seed.  This involves coitus interruptus (early withdrawal), masturbation, oral copulation, or rubbing externally against the body to the point of ejaculation. It also involved any form of birth control. Pederasty.  Anal intercourse.  Or men lying with men (Oral/anal) non-procreative sex.  The only approved form of sex was procreative sex within marriage where there was a high probability of pregnancy and of a child that would grow to adulthood.  The Bible has strong  admonitions against any other form of sex.  The penalties for all were the same.

T
he Christians, an offshoot of Judaism, adopted the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament.  Homosexuality, men lying with men, was rarely considered in early Christianity and was basically ignored, especially by the Church.  Those inclined toward homosexuality often joined the Church and became priests and monks.  They were members of the educated class.  In the Middle Ages, although all non-procreative sex was officially forbidden, it was basically ignored.  Two things happened to change this. Some writers of religious text began expressing strong sentiments against sex.  Until property laws changed in the Middle Ages, priests could marry and raise families just as protestant ministers today.  When property laws changed, the widows of priests who has started their own churches claimed these churches and the revenues received through them as their inheritance.  This was in direct conflict with the Church who claimed the property and the revenue.  As a result, the Church issued edicts against marriage by priests and insisted that priests should remain celibate.  This caused upheaval and riotous disagreement by the heterosexual priests who were then denied access to sexual release.  In Medieval towns, a priest could hardly have sex with a town's woman without everyone knowing about it, and this could lead to expulsion. Priests found themselves in a position of having to remain celibate, and about that, they were very unhappy.  At the same time, homosexually inclined priests were cloistered in monasteries away from public eyes, and sex among those priests was abundant.  This led to animosity with the heterosexual priests in communities who had to remain celibate.  Almost everyone during that time was illiterate except for the upper class and the priests.  Priests often wrote on religion and other topics and took their writings to the town centers where they read them to the town's folk who were unable to read themselves.  And thus admonitions against men lying with men began to appear in town centers and the people increasingly found themselves admonished regarding this.  This is what is called a "thought virus" or meme.  Meme is pronounced similar to gene and refers to cultural practices being passed from one generation to another just as genes pass physical attributes between generations.  And thus, homophobia was born.  Ostracism was greatly feared during Medieval times.  Any expulsion from the community meant death.  So homophobia as a fear of being associated with homosexuality itself began to spread through all of society.  Later as Europeans began to explore the world, they took homophobia with them wherever they went and spread it across the face of the globe.  Even those who did not adopt their religion adopted this meme and for the first time, peoples who had no prior rejection of homosexual sex began to reject it and fear it.

At a time when homophobia has begun to die in the Western world, fundamentalist churches have adopted an anti-homosexual stance for political and economic reasons. Having a focus of hatred toward an outside minority provides the fundamentalist church with an attraction by those who seek to belong by sharing a hatred.  It is a natural human behavior.  The anti-homosexual stance has increased the membership of fundamentalist churches.  Humans have an instinct to reject those who are different from them or the group (herd.)  This causes a bond between those who share a hatred.  It also has become big business for these churches bringing in billions in revenue for anti-homosexual projects.  This is revenue that the churches would not otherwise have and it is a lucrative business that they show no inclination to turn away.  Although one is aware that for every homosexual fornication in our society there are more than ten or twenty times more heterosexual fornications but, yet, these are never mentioned. Nor is birth control attacked.  A very large population of couples live together witout getting married. Nor is divorce and remarriage attacked even though the Bible says that this is adultery.  That would be attacking their own membership and would drive both people and revenue away.  They want to attract people and revenue and thus their program of hatred of homosexuals, a minority,  has become a cash cow for their religious altar.

W
e rarely take time to sit and analyze why things are the way they are.  We just assume that is the way they are supposed to be.  However, all human behaviors have a history.  We simply have to look hard enough to find it.

For anyone who did not know this information before, I hope this has been informative and useful.  It opens up new avenues of thought and gives us a new opportunity to improve our knowledge base.  Sex is an important feature of human life, and the better we understand our sexuality, the better life we can have as human beings.

 
 

body <>
Len Nobs

 
Excellent, Insightful. Great points. The best part, I think is when you talk about the homophobia.
 
Posted by Len Nobs on February 29, 2008 - Friday - 8:53 PM
Jordan
Jordan Valone

 
very nice but very l..D
What i was talkin about on rhynes blog though was the aspect of whether it is sin or not. And biblically it is not until action is taken. And whether or not ur tendencies want u to do something u can still resist although it may be hard. I believe the thing about it damaging if action is not taken is more opinion then fact. Many people who want to kill do not. Some people even turn themselves in to go against it. That is y i personally find temptation can be resisted.
Once again very good blog and kudos
 
Posted by Jordan on February 29, 2008 - Friday - 9:46 PM
Jordan
Jordan Valone

 
i am not trying to get anyone to be christian by saying that I DISAGREE WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!
i was just explaining to him that on a biblical lv their is a way not to sin through homosexuality and that is what i did say.
I in no way asked him to believe what i believe or tell him he was evil. I just explained that their was in fact a way not to sin even though u may have a mental temptation.
Whether u believe in sin or not is not my concern because it is YOUR choice and no one else.
If u find that i was forcing myself and my opinions on another then u misinterpreted wat i was trying to say. I am not catholic for the record lol.
Sin was not made to control masses it just provide morale guidelines that do not have to be followed. Without some morale guidelines the world would be a very bad place. Its like a country with no gov. it will die out unless it adapts and develops one.
So in closing i have in no way forced my beliefs on anyone. If anyone is forcing beliefs it would be in fact him by telling everyone that they are dumb and closed minded. Doesn't the fact that he does not listen to anyones arguement for christianity make him closed minded. I like to hear both sides of a idea cause its fun to hack out wats right and wats rong. And your right ideas about life and everything r ur opinion and no one elses. I appreciate your intelligence. But i personally try not to force my ideas on anyone, sry if somehow i lead you to think i was.=D
 
Posted by Jordan on March 2, 2008 - Sunday - 7:00 PM
Jordan
Jordan Valone

 
to tru
Thanks for clearing that up. I hate when people stereotype me for something i am not. It just foolishness.
O yea im getting that book to tmrw =D
 
Posted by Jordan on March 3, 2008 - Monday - 3:48 AM
Travis
Travis Gibby

 
"Nor is divorce and remarriage attacked even though the Bible says that this is adultery. That would be attacking their own membership and would drive both people and revenue away."

So so true.

Great article. Thanks for writing it.
 
Posted by Travis on February 29, 2008 - Friday - 9:56 PM
alex the PI
Alex Harleaux

 
very well done. loved it!
 
Posted by alex the PI on March 1, 2008 - Saturday - 1:08 AM
Sedgie

 
Great blog! Thank you for sharing it.
 
Posted by Sedgie on March 1, 2008 - Saturday - 6:40 AM
Trisha
Trisha Dickerson

 
Very nice explanation and very well written. Thanks for trying to educate.
 
Posted by Trisha on March 1, 2008 - Saturday - 7:06 PM
nobody

 
So which one was gay? The dude with the large genitals or the dude with the small??? C'mon man, don't leave me hangin!
 
Posted by nobody on March 2, 2008 - Sunday - 1:30 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
One hung low.
 
Posted by Rex on March 2, 2008 - Sunday - 2:27 AM
ami

 
so the one with big genitals was gay?

I know two twins personally and one is gay and one is straight. but the one with small genitles is gay, or at least he says they are:)
 
Posted by ami on March 6, 2008 - Thursday - 1:00 PM
Paul

 
From what I've experienced of life I would say this is just about spot on.
A thoughtful blog and well presented.
 
Posted by Paul on March 2, 2008 - Sunday - 1:40 PM
The Czarina

 
masterful. though you didn't post your sources, the science seems right. certainly jibes with everything i've read and experienced on the subject. my passionate belief that homosexuality is as normal a minority expression of human variety as is my lefthandedness - a genetic tendency which itself occurs in less than 15% of the population.

your take on the judeo-christian religious basis for the rise of homophobia was most interesting and thought-provoking too. how much more ignorance and ugliness can be laid at the doorstep of these hateful traditions based on early humankind's fears, superstitions, and imaginations? the pile of dirty laundry is reaching the tipping point as gays, atheists, and others who don't fit their rigid patterns will remain silent to the irrational and cruel dogma no longer.

hey, once i could have been burned at the stake as a witch for being left-handed:)

many kudos.
 
Posted by The Czarina on March 3, 2008 - Monday - 9:46 AM
Andy

 
Homosexuality is in great part a consequence of social conditioning and ultimately is a person's choice of self-perception.
 
Posted by Andy on March 4, 2008 - Tuesday - 5:05 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
"Homosexuality is in great part a consequence of social conditioning and ultimately is a person's choice of self-perception."

Let's take a look at this together. To answer that, I need to ask you some questions.
Since, I assume, you mean to cover all homosexuals in that description and not just those in the US, and that you also mean all homosexuals from all time periods leading back to the first civilizations, and not just the present time, could you provide me with a detailed description of what that "social conditioning" is that is pervasive enough that it crosses all of time and all culture barriers? I am at a loss to guess what it might be.

"Is a person's choice if self-perception."

Keeping in mind the question immediately above, how do we explain how this "self-perception" applies to all these people from all time periods and cultures? What exactly does this self-perception involve?

And, considering the case of identical twins who not only share the same genetic material, the same gestation conditions, the same parental conditions, the same educational conditions, the same social conditions, and even the same dietary conditions, would you explain to me why one of the twins is affected and the other is not?

For the life of me, I can't figure out how to get around these problems.
 
Posted by Rex on March 4, 2008 - Tuesday - 9:44 PM
The Czarina

 
sorry you're frustated, andy, but please don't let that keep you from looking. it's not helpful to your position to offer up opinions based on studies that you can't find and then not even articulate with any detail what these studies revealed to you. can you put in your own words what you learned? you give me no opportunity to review, digest, evaluate the credentials of the source material, "modify my own position", see "another view", or debunk anything.

while rex did not list sources, his grasp of the subject appears to be so grounded in a catholic (small "c", meaning eclectic, extensive, all-embracing, liberal) education - self-taught or academic, that his explanations were all his own, based on solid knowledge previously received and offered up as a distillation of this knowledge in his own voice. as he bravely put out there his own evaluation, he opened himself up to criticism. he got none from me because my experiences and general knowledge largely meshed with his own. if i felt he were whistling in the wind, i would have called him on it.

google "sociological studies on human homosexuality", perhaps? if your studies are nowhere to be found, what is found when you plug in that search?
 
Posted by The Czarina on March 6, 2008 - Thursday - 4:16 AM
ami

 
I personally have no problem with homosexuality and have gay friends and 'temptations' myself...but

one has to ask 'just because something is in our genes, does that make it ok?'

pedophilia is shown to be related to our gneetic codes too and so is pyschopaths

so, how does one determine what is moral or what is just in society ...we cant simply say because it is in my genetic code, I can do it..can we?
 
Posted by ami on March 6, 2008 - Thursday - 1:04 PM
crucifix killer

 
"pedophilia is shown to be related to our gneetic codes too and so is pyschopaths" - ami

psychopathy isnt genetic. often there are genetic predispositions, but not always. it can be purely environmental.

"Physically, he can try not to have sex with other males, but sex with females will NEVER satisfy him emotionally. It will be similar to masturbation. It will give him physical sexual release, but it will never give the emotional satisfaction that his brain needs to relate properly to the world. He will become unhappy and miserable if he never has a sexual relationship with another male." - Rex

what does it mean when sex with either gender feels the same? it sounds like you're saying that one can only be emotionally attracted to one gender, which leaves out bisexuality and asexuality.
 
Posted by crucifix killer on March 7, 2008 - Friday - 11:13 PM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
This blog is only about heterosexuality and homosexuality. I am not taking on the entire Kinsey spectrum which involves psychology, hormones, sexual practices and a huge variety of other variables. It's a short blog, not a book, and the function is not to expain every variability of human sexual possibility (physical, instinctual, and psychological.) It addresses the nature of human sexual orientation, not actual sex.
 
Posted by Rex on March 8, 2008 - Saturday - 3:03 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
Now you are getting into an entirely different topic that has nothing to do with homosexuality.
You are raising "moral" issues which would require a completely separate blog on morals.
Let me briefly address child sexual abuse which I have done a study of. Who are the child molesters? Do you know? I do. It will shock you. The "typical" child molester is a heterosexual male who is gainfully employed and is living in your household. He is the father, the step father, the live-in boyfriend or lover, the uncle, the cousin, the older brother, and sometimes it is the mother.

Does that mean we should outlaw heterosexuality? If you were to believe the focus of the news media, you would believe that the typical child molester is a random male invading your home or community to endanger your children. That amounts to 0.01 percent of the child molestation cases. 99.99 percent are due to other causes and the vast majority are those who I have just named.

But, you see, the fact that you bring this up indicates that you have a "view" that gays are somehow responsible for all the moral problems. Why do you have that view? Do you know?
 
Posted by Rex on March 6, 2008 - Thursday - 4:29 PM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
Please note: I have removed all comments that lead to religious debate in order to keep the page on topic.
 
Posted by Rex on March 7, 2008 - Friday - 10:38 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
I am starting to receive many very nice private e-mails over this blog from people who do not like to post publicly. So perserving this person's anonymity, here are his comments:
********
ok so i just read your blog on sexual orientation, it was very detailed and seemed well researched! its funny because i have been looking for this kind of breakdown of sexuality for my personal reference because i struggle to find wat it is that i want. the piece about 'double orgasms' really hit home and helped me to see things in a clearer light. i have spent more than my adolesent life scutinizing over this subject to great dispair and feel i cant talk to people or that im crazy for having these doubts and for breaking down my own experiences into great details. but to read ur blog gives me confidence in my thoughts and hopefully will help me to deal with my issues and move on to a satisfying life that i think we all can achieve and deserve!

i suppose i just wanted to say well done and thanks for taking the time to research and produce your blog! it has been a great help to me and im sure other people who have read it would feel the same!

if you know of any useful sites that deal with sexual orientation that i may find useful i would much appreciate you forwarding the address's to me.

thanks again and keep up the good work!
 
Posted by Rex on March 10, 2008 - Monday - 10:56 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
I'll share another private e-mail.
*************
This was one of the best articles / explanations I have ever come across. Can you point me to any resources / references / citings to back your statements? I am not challenging anything you have to say. I would love to use your writings to help educate some of the parents and kids that i end up interacting with and any back up would be really helpful.

I am not a counselor, teacher or professional in regards to this information - but many times end up talking with kids and parents concerning these issues. I am the father of four kids - and YES - I am gay. In fact, I am the perfect example of a gay male who has been attracted to men since i was 5 or six, completely identified myself as gay - dated men long before ever being with a woman - married the first woman i ever had sex with - had two kids, divorced, dated men again, then remarried another woman for 17 years - having two more kids. Sex was purely performance and ended quickly in both marriages. Both wives knew and understood that i was attracted to men but also knew that i would never cheat. They both had even "jokingly" mentioned that gay men make much better lovers.

I went thru years of marriage counseling, personal counseling - church counseling - antidepressants, anti anxiety meds - then finally walked away from the facade and "came out". That wasn't the reason for divorce but was the turning point in my complete emotional development and growth. The fact remains that my emotional needs are only fulfilled by a relationship with another man. Sex is also 1000 times better and totally passionate but I will agree -that this is all emotionally linked.

I'm gay, in a great relationship with an incredible man, (and yes - did the traditional slutting around phase so it's not like i left a marriage and went immeidiately into another relationship - actully took several years before I met the RIGHT guy) - I'm off all medication, have a great relationship with both ex wives and all four kids, and in most situations - could be considered emotionally healthy, stable, and extremely happy. My two oldest kids 22 and 20 end up having their friends talk to me a lot about their sexual orientation / preferences. My 17 year old daughter has now started having friends talk to me and their perents about the situation. I'm always very open, supportive and willing to share anything I can in a positive way to help kids thru their challenges. I've sat with kids as they out themselves to their parents - and have twice had to sit down with parents privately to offer a reality check in accepting their kids homosexuality.
I am not a counselor nor a specialist - just a guy who went thru some serous growth to become myself. Whenever it comes to counseling - i don't even touch that - i refer parents and kids to a couple of programs that I know about - Antioch's GLBT studies is awesome.

Any info you can share would be fantastic. I greatly appreciate what you had to say and am thankful for people like you who have something intellegent to share on this subject.

Kenn
 
Posted by Rex on March 11, 2008 - Tuesday - 1:15 AM
Nate
Nathan Hemperley

 
Very well written and some great points!
 
Posted by Nate on March 12, 2008 - Wednesday - 6:49 AM
Nico

 
Very in-depth.
 
Posted by Nico on March 18, 2008 - Tuesday - 8:35 PM
AChaise

 
impressive and well explained.
 
Posted by AChaise on March 19, 2008 - Wednesday - 7:12 PM
Five Bears
Five Bears

 
Great Blog,..The attempts of whites to destroy any tolerance and respect of someone diffent is a Disgrace. Homophobia is a cultural value that has been well absorbed from the white man.
 
Posted by Five Bears on March 19, 2008 - Wednesday - 8:29 PM
Andrew
Andrew Austin

 
Why is it so important for homosexuality to be genetic? It isn't anybody's business who I prefer to be with. I don't have to give a reason why I'm gay anymore than I need to explain why I'm heterosexual, or why I prefer any other possible object of affection.

Isn't claiming that genetics governs ones sexual preference like saying that genetics determines ones racial preferences? Yes, it seems to me that it is. I hear sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologist (pseudo scientific nonsense they espouse) argue that beneath racism is the instinct to be with one's own kind. Whites prefer whites not because of racist socialization, but because of the operation of genes compels individuals to seek out individuals who are like themselves. You can make people of different races live together, but they won't like it. The patriarchy is universal because of the nature of our biological constitution. Men have different brains than women, and this is why men are better at math. We war because of the instinct of territorial imperative, etc. So forth and so on.

All of these claims are bogus and elements of a reactionary ideology to boot. No genes, sets of genes, or (sets of) gene expressions governing social behavior has been discovered. There is no compelling logic behind the idea of behavioral genetics in people - an animal species devoid of instinct (it's true: we have no instincts). Moreover, it's more than politically disadvantageous to root our differences - race, gender, sexual orientation - in biology. It's a reactionary ideology that somehow made its way into the gay and lesbian community by members who felt pressured to explain their existence. (Does this explain why Andrew Sullivan finds The Bell Curve to be such an excellent book?)

Many gays and lesbians, because people say there is something wrong with them, seek to explain why there is something wrong with them. But this presumes that there is something wrong with homosexuality. There have always been men who prefer men and women who prefer women. There have always been men and women who like both men and women, and not as a transitory phase of life. There's nothing wrong with it. It's not a disease to be explained by medical science. It's the way some people have become and that's perfectly okay. Screw people who think there's something wrong it. And screw people who deny gays and lesbians their civil rights.

Genes and biology have become - especially in the American liberal mind - the new god. Everything is to be explained by genes. Just as biology make us gay, biology makes us hate gays. And on it goes. We do know that homosexuality is a behavior. These behaviors are learned during the complex socialization process that produces unique individuals. Compulsory heterosexuality is an oppressive regime of socialization. But, as we see, many people escape many of its effects. Gays and lesbians are those whom the regime of compulsory heterosexuality failed to force into the so-called "conventional" manner of sexual and gendered existence. And that's a good thing.

Peace,
Andrew
 
Posted by Andrew on March 19, 2008 - Wednesday - 11:38 PM
Observer
Marc Hicks

 
I am always amazed at how when homosexuality is brought up, invariably somebody seems to know what God likes and what God condemns.
In monotheism, belief in the one God, what components do you think God would have. He would have to have a male component and a female components. Think about it.
 
Posted by Observer on March 20, 2008 - Thursday - 5:01 AM
Miguel

 
That was a great read! Thank you. As for the comment from Jordan in which he says that I can control my instinct to be gay by not acting on it I say fuey! I act on it out of love and desire, two traits given to me by GOD as I was created in his own image. My instincts tell me what I should decide to d not who I should be. If that was the case then it becomes a choice and I can attest to you my friend that it isnt. I was born with a desire to love another person period. The fact that my body is attracted to males is just that an attraction. If we don't share that in common than GOD made you different than me and thats ok. He made every snowflake different too, should we pick out the ones that GOD made first or better? We are persecuted enough by just breathing the same air, please don't come at me with smiles and rays of sunshine and tell me to live in a living coma! If it is your decision to force your herd to not act on life than you my friend are guilty of imprisonment and torture. may GOD forgive you!
 
Posted by Miguel on March 20, 2008 - Thursday - 5:42 AM
Paul

 
A friend mentioned your blog and told me to see it. I was excited when I read it. These are questions I've wondered about my whole life. I'm gay. I've known I was gay since I was a little kid. But I could never figure out why. No one taught me to be gay. I didn't even know what sex was. I see all sorts of theories but none of them ever made any sense to me. They did not agree with my experiences as a gay person. When I read your blog, everything fell in place. It was like a light bulb went on. For the first time, suddenly I understand it. It makes perfect sense. What really gets me is that once I read it, it seems so obvious! Why didn't I see this before? I guess we always miss the obvious. I tried for years to be straight but it just didn't work. Something was missing. The sex was okay, but that's all there was. It's like the song "Is that all there is to life?" I was not happy and I didn't know why. Not until I met my lover. He changed everything. The sex is fantastic, but it's more than that. Our relationship has meaning and I'm happy to come home at night. I look forward to it. Our relationship feels right in every respect and I suppose that is what counts.

I realize the religious right wants to destroy us for their own gain. But that's not going to happen. You are doing the right thing by putting this information out. How can we be who we are if we don't understand where we came from? No one questions straight people, but those with an agenda attack gays all the time. We have to understand our roots or else we are not much more than pawns for whatever political force wants to use us for their ends. The only way to overcome that is to understand our own nature and to stand tall and fight back. All I can say is "Thank You for this blog!" It's the best thing I've read in a very long time.
 
Posted by Paul on March 20, 2008 - Thursday - 6:04 AM
Miguel

 
TO THE HITLER GUY ABOVE..... That is no way to get your point across. You have a right to believe whatever you want to but don't resort to shovanistic, name bashing, backwoods, straight from the trailer with a used Penthouse mag at your side type of language! I hope you don't have any women in your life.
 
Posted by Miguel on March 20, 2008 - Thursday - 6:17 AM
Miguel

 
I thought I was done commenting but... Paul, I agree with you completely. There is nothing better than coming home to the person who you love and who loves you every day. I have a partner who for the past 11 tears has supported me spiritually and loves me unconditionaly I plan to spend the rest of my life with him. So while others waste their lives trying to figure out why I am I will be living every day as who I am with the person I was meant to be with. It was refreshing to read your post.
 
Posted by Miguel on March 20, 2008 - Thursday - 6:28 AM
Barnes

 
Good blog,

All I can say is "show me the science" (i.e. give me a link to some kind of scientific research that supports your claims)

Also, explain your use of the word "correct" in the following passage:

"In the case of these two male fetuses, one receives the correct protein sequence and receives a sexual orientation instinct which will cause his sexual orientation to relate emotionally to females. The other receives protein instructions that cause him to have a sexual orientation that will be directed at other males."
 
Posted by Barnes on April 16, 2008 - Wednesday - 9:45 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
Barnes - Sorry, but I accidentally deleted your last comment. I went to click on reply and I slipped. But I will reply to it anyway. What you were getting into in your last comment was something BEYOND sexual orientation. You are getting into SEXUAL PRACTICE which is beyond the scope of this small article. Sexual practice crosses over into the area Kinsey covered which is positively massive. It would take many volumes to cover. I am not the least bit interested in sexual practice. It involves culture, psychology, ritual, emotion, physical desire and a whole host of things. Human sexual possibility is vast. It goes far beyond sexual orientation.

As far as I can tell, bi-sexuality is not a sexual orientation. It is learned behavior. This involves SEX, actual PHYSICAL SEX, not emotional attachment. Many people are satisfied with physical sex alone. A homosexual can have intercourse with females, get married, raise families. Heterosexuals can have sex frequently with the same gender. There are many contributing factors. I've talked with many bi-sexuals in my life and ALL of them have indicated that they have a sexual preference. They relate emotionally to one gender or the other, but they like physical sex and they will have sex with either gender to satisfy their physical sexual desire. As bi-sexual practitioners, they are interested in the physical sex, nothing else. Homosexuality is not about physical sex. Heterosexuality is not about physical sex. They are orientations, sexual emotional orientations. The physical sex follows from the emotional orientation. You can learn to have sex with a rubber duck.

I don't want to write an article longer than my original article trying to explain this. But just to be completely clear, let me say this again: homosexuality is not about physical sex. Heterosexuality is not about physical sex. Physical sex comes from the physical sex instinct. Your orientation does not matter. The physical sexual instinct does not care if you have sex with rubber ducks, your hand, a male, or a female. It does not care. It will give you pleasure and it will give you an orgasm no matter which way you do it. Too many people CONFUSE PHYSICAL SEX with sexual orientation. Though the two can link together in actual practice, they operate completely separately. Reread the article carefully and you will see my statements in that regard. Physical sex (culturally induced, psychologically induced, physically induced, circumstantial, or otherwise) is NOT sexual orientation.
 
Posted by Rex on April 16, 2008 - Wednesday - 10:52 PM
Barnes

 
I’m glad you deleted the other comment - it was a crap comment. Now here’s a good one:

I don’t believe you. I don’t believe you because you can’t prove it.
If you could prove it I would have to believe you whether I liked it or not. Not only do I not believe you I don’t believe ‘them’, that being society who says that there is a sexual orientation. I don’t believe it any more than I believe there is a class orientation in which some people are born to be upper class and some born to be lower.
Nor do I believe there is a war gene expression which makes you want to go and die in Vietnam or Iraq.

I especially don’t believe it because you’ve come up with a new concept of emotional and physical orientation or whatever it is. Meaning that it could only be verified by personal experience and that would still ignore all that stuff about tantric sex where you just go and develop those ecstatic feelings.

All the explanation of different behaviour is based on hatred. If you can say that someone is fundamentally different to you then you can have a good reason to murder them just as soon as you get a chance. That’s what people want to do with people that show sexual attraction to the same sex. And then if you ask them what they would do if they woke up one morning and they were attracted to people of the same gender then they say “I would kill myself” and unfortunately lots of them do.

With other things society has gone away from believing that other people are fundamentally different as in the case of race, but in sexual behaviour it’s still as common as ever because they know they’re not going to wake up with a different skin colour, but if they realise that sexual orientation is just like any other taste then there will be no barrier between them and it.

Guess what? I don’t believe that at some point in your development there’s an icecream gene that gets turned on so that they like icecream. I don’t even believe that there is any difference between me and an Olympic windsurfer. I don’t think there was a windsurfing gene that got turned on or not.
I don’t even believe that there’s any specific genetic difference between a churchgoing fundamentalist who’s speaking in tongues and a guy dancing in a gay nightclub.

I believe that’s just some stuff they decide to do!

And yet get this: I am a hard core biological determinist!!

Yeah, Actually I’ve already blogged on this subject myself so I’d be interested to here your thoughts about what I wrote there given that our theories are at completely different ends of the scale and but infact your theory is probably way better than anything else I’ve ever read - otherwise I wouldn’t even bother to write this!

I still don’t believe it though.
 
Posted by Barnes on April 19, 2008 - Saturday - 8:45 AM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
http://www.amazon.com/Mean-Genes-Taming-Primal-Instincts/dp/0142000078/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208601300&sr=8-1

Mean Genes: From Sex to Money to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts (Paperback)
by Terry Burnham (Author), Jay Phelan (Author)

Fascinating and very enjoyable book. I wrote one of the first reviews on it. It can tell you more elegantly than I can in this brief space. Well worth reading.
 
Posted by Rex on April 19, 2008 - Saturday - 10:45 AM
Barnes

 
Thanks for the link. I've always been a fan of David Buss myself but it looks like I would do well to look at that book.
For another book which holds an interesting genetic theory on this particular subject checkout Adam's Curse by Bryan Sykes.
Hope I wasn't to harsh. I'm sure you're trying to do good. You must be, you're a moral philosopher!
 
Posted by Barnes on April 20, 2008 - Sunday - 9:04 PM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
"All I can say is "show me the science" (i.e. give me a link to some kind of scientific research that supports your claims)"

Sadly, there isn't any "research" covering this broad topic. There is a great deal of research on other fields (cancer, DNA transcription, genetic problems, etc.). That information is scattered across a thousand journals and hundreds of books. This was not a college thesis written to reference the lastest reading material. This was a quick synopsis of 30 years of reading on my part. I used the monozygotic (identical twins) to demonstrate known facts. Monozygotic twins, though starting with idential DNA down to the last molecule end up with many physical differences and quite often, one is gay and the other isn't. The behavioral part comes from much reading in the cognitive sciences and my own life-long observations. Its a matter of observation, reasoning, and deduction. That's exactly what Darwin did to reach answers about life. If you're waiting for government research on this specific topic, I'm afraid you'll be waiting until Hell freezes over.

"Also, explain your use of the word "correct" in the following passage:
"In the case of these two male fetuses, one receives the correct protein sequence and receives a sexual orientation instinct which will cause his sexual orientation to relate emotionally to females. The other receives protein instructions that cause him to have a sexual orientation that will be directed at other males."

Gene expression involves both DNA transcription and RNA conversion. The RNA produces the protein molecules (according to DNA instruction). Mistakes are often made in the process, but most are corrected. A protein molecule may not be put together properly. Even a single atom missing from the end of a molecule will cause the molecule to fail to work as a key turning on or turning off a gene sequence. The code creating the zygote is being "written on the run." The DNA and the RNA together produce the actual end code that manufactures the zygote's characteristics. If any part of this process "fails," then an alternate chemical instruction is given as a result.
 
Posted by Rex on April 16, 2008 - Wednesday - 3:14 PM
Yvonne
Yvonne Zhang

 
Excellent language!!
But in terms of the molecular basis of sex orientation, I think I have a different opinion. As you said, gene expression is dynamic. Some expression can be turned on and off according to the cell's condition. Therefore I think sex orientation for a particular people is not determined in the early stages of fetus development. It definitely has something to do with the environment.
 
Posted by Yvonne on April 16, 2008 - Wednesday - 3:05 PM
Rex
Rex Bennett

 
I'm not sure what you mean by "environment." Monozygotic twins share the same placenta and therefore the same conditions. They have identical DNA. You can refer to gene expression as an "environment." Every condition coexisting is an "environment." If by environment you mean after birth, nothing has ever been found to support this. It is also contradicted by the fact that identical twins share the exact same environment. What affects one should affect the other. The cogitive sciences have come a long way in understanding motivational behavior. It won't be much longer before they have major break throughs in understanding human behavior on a phsyiological level. If you want to read something fascinating (that ties to this) read up on the brain's "seeking system." This is fascinating stuff.
 
Posted by Rex on April 16, 2008 - Wednesday - 3:34 PM
**Jennifer**

 
Came here from Todzilla's blog today, I have to say this is the argument I've attempted to state for years.

EXCELLENT! Subscribing and wishing you a great weekend!
 
Posted by **Jennifer** on May 2, 2008 - Friday - 12:07 PM
Print and Destroy

 
I enjoyed your intro and brief genetic runthrough, but as for the combination of genetic locuses which control gender identification is unknown to me, I am interested in your reference on the matter.

Also I would object that there is no polarized male or female identification, and this complex issue (as you did note) is moderately determined by cultural inputs as well.

However your idea that there is a gender gene (or set of genes) that correspond to physical development in preparation for sexual maturity is fascinating to me, and I only wish to be shown the light.

I look forward to anyones response regarding scholarly research done on this topic.

As for homophobia, I am disgusted by peoples inability to accept others legal sexual choices. Consenting adult are consenting adult... period! The institution surrounding emotional partnerships growing from modern relationships should not be based on gender of the parties involved.

I am proud to be in one of the few states which rejected a constitutional ban and I hope the California case makes it to the Supreme Court. Maybe then people will start suing the institutions that discriminate based on marital preference znd have something to ground their claims.
 
Posted by Print and Destroy on May 24, 2008 - Saturday - 5:22 AM