The two principles that explain most of gay deviance are their Peter Pan-ism and having the minds of addicts. Little children are interested in ancient civilizations, and fascinated by the future, so the Peter Pan tendencies of gays does not tell us why they are uninterested in the non-present.
Rather, this seems to be due more to their addictive mind -- only out cruising for this moment's fix, whether scoring drugs, sucking cock, shopping, or getting showered with attention from their fag hag friends. Earlier fixes don't matter once their effect has worn off, and fixes too far into the future won't give them a rush right now.
What's the evidence for their not caring about the past or future? Lots, but just to throw out a few examples:
They've never been big in the environmentalist or other preservationist movements, which are usually manned by upper-middle class European do-gooder types. They don't contribute to futuristic fiction, whether in its nerdier or dreading genres. Not to mention how heavily they discount the future by ignoring how decrepit they will become so quickly because of AIDS and the thousands of other diseases they'll pick up, just to indulge their kinky sex lives.
Gays also have no sense of their own past, even the recent past and even when it was political and confrontational, similar in tone and spirit to the racial-ethnic civil rights movements. No fag under 30 or so knows what ACT UP was, and probably wouldn't be able to say much about the Stonewall Riots. They did make a homophile movie about Harvey Milk, though, so they may know about him.
I know there's a stereotype that gays are the preservers of old show tunes, but I don't see that. It may have been true for some small cohort of queers, but today's younger gays couldn't even tell you who the gay singers from the 1980s were, and they were very popular. They are just too caught on the fashion treadmill to wander back in time -- anything earlier than Lady Gaga, Pink, and Katy Perry are all kind of a blur to them.
This shows just how little sense of collective memory they have, as none of their favorite singers today -- or anyone's favorites -- are actually gay. Fag hags maybe, but not gays. As recently as the '80s there was Boy George, Rob Halford, Freddie Mercury, Pete Burns, Marc Almond, Neil Tennant, George Michael, Michael Stipe, just to name a few. In fact, I rarely see gays at '80s night compared to a random night out at a club -- one of the great things about it -- even though you'd think that music would be right up their alley, not just for danceability but also starring more of their own.
Aren't academic gays quite important in the fields of history of the arts and history of fashion and just overall history? Brian Sewell, Simon Schama and David Starkey types. That's a British reference - not sure if there are American analogues... Maybe (at least in arts) that's more an excuse to be bitchy than anything else? Stereotypically, gays are overrepresented amongst teachers of younger children (and in the caring professions, nurses and so on, but that's not really a signal of future orientation really).
ReplyDeleteGays do seem to see the past as a terrible place where awful things happened to them, except maybe in the civilized age of classical Greece and Rome. Obviously that's an inaccurate perception - a symptom or excuse or cause for low interest in history?
Searching "gays environmentalism" seems to find some survey data which shows increased support for environmentalist positions amongst gays. Might be dodgy in their basis and may be shallow support more related to fashion that commitment perhaps. Really, how big is a small minority that's 1% of the population going to be in any movement (without a strong skills gap)?
I'm not sure they're less well represented in future oriented scifi than women, given there's around 1/50 as many gays as straight women, and that the women interested in writing scifi may be more likely to be lesbians (or maybe not?). That seems like it could be a feminised thing, just not being any good at technical competence.
They do seem neophiliac in general. Self selection by the more conscientious of the gays feeling more bad about the gay related social censure and discounting the pleasures of the flesh more (and more conscientious people having a higher time orientation).
"and that the women interested in writing scifi may be more likely to be lesbians (or maybe not?). That seems like it could be a feminised thing"
ReplyDelete"Young adult" - even when having sci-fi themes - is basically just romance novels, so its something that is written by and appeals to women who are feminine.
Onto the topic: Some evolutionary psychologists speculate that homosexuality evolved as a reproductive strategy for those men so "unfit" that they were forced to mate with unattractive women. Homosexuals are essentially men who've given up competing in the male hierarchy, accepting a dependent role. And if you're a dependent, you no longer need impulse control...
The theory seems to make sense, though there are always exceptions. I personally know some gay men who are pretty cool and accomplished professionals.
To add to my last comment: Gays are generally attracted more by looks than by social status(they are men, after all). And unlike women, they don't lower their sexual value through wild behavior. If what kind of mate you get is determined mostly by your looks and not by social status, *and* you won't appear trashy by engaging in wild behavior, one can see how impulse control gets thrown out the window.
ReplyDeleteOne question I have is, why do gays have the reputation of being more empathetic or sensitive that straights?
ReplyDeleteI mean, giving people AIDS is not exactly a nice thing to do.
Is it because they don't have a masculine manner? Is it because they will comments about your hairstyle, clothing, and so on (personal details)? Or that they often seem to have close relationships with their mothers?
Homosexuality as an adaptation doesn't make any sense. How does actually pursuing that activity make your genes more likely to spread? Greg Cochran's pathogenic theory is the only idea I've heard that makes any sense.
ReplyDeleteHey teach I know this one!!!!! Over here!!!! It's because they DON'T HAVE KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete"Homosexuality as an adaptation doesn't make any sense. How does actually pursuing that activity make your genes more likely to spread?"
ReplyDeleteBecause for most of human history, gay men married women and had children. Remember, social acceptance of bachelorhood is a recent development - in ages past, all men were under pressure to have kids and add to the manpower of their tribe/civilization/country.
If you're an "Unfit" man( mentally weak), unable to compete for attractive women, its advantageous not to even be attracted to women. At least this way you won't try to compete and get killed by a stronger man, and can have children, even if they are by an unattractive woman.
Such pressure might exist in the agricultural era (and even then only with well organized clan networks), but did it during the hunter-gatherer era we spent most of our evolutionary history in?
ReplyDeleteThere can be risks as well as benefits when it comes to seeking out women (the ultimate risk is having no children at all, so the benefits outweigh), but what are the genetic benefits of seeking out men? Nothing that couldn't be accomplished by just seeking out neither.
"Because for most of human history, gay men married women and had children."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter--if they really were men who didn't feel sexual attraction for women, they had fewer kids than their straight counterparts. Over a period of time, their genes would have gone out the window.
TCCP is right.
What bjk said----NO KIDS, and for most of them, no desire to have kids.
ReplyDelete"Because for most of human history, gay men married women and had children."
ReplyDeleteDoesn't matter--if they really were men who didn't feel sexual attraction for women, they had fewer kids than their straight counterparts. Over a period of time, their genes would have gone out the window.
TCCP is right.
Not to pour cold water on this (because I do basically buy it), but I think Cochran has recently been critical of the theory that homosexuality persists as a side effect of making females who are more boy crazy (to use an agnosticism) and fertile, on the basis that additional motivation to reproduce doesn't really matter in the Malthusian pre-modern context.
ReplyDeleteYou could say the same for homosexuality men - since homo men would easily meet the baseline for children that they could support in the Malthusian pre-modern world, through social pressure, it basically wouldn't matter how much or how little desire they would feel for women beyond this. If they weren't girl crazy, it wouldn't matter much.
Unless there's some logic I'm missing, that would make homosexuality potentially a neutral adaption. I still find this unlikely.
"Doesn't matter--if they really were men who didn't feel sexual attraction for women, they had fewer kids than their straight counterparts. Over a period of time, their genes would have gone out the window."
ReplyDeleteNo, they wouldn't. In patriarchal societies, how many kids you had was determined solely by how much money you had. It had nothing to do with a man's sexual desire for his wife.
Franklin Roosevelt had seven(!) children. You think he was motivated by his lust for Eleanor?
There have been many, many gay science fiction ("futurist," as you put it) writers, most notably the incomparable Samuel Delany.
ReplyDeletePossible the exception which proves the rule, but David Gerrold is gay and a fairly successful SF writer.
ReplyDelete"No, they wouldn't. In patriarchal societies, how many kids you had was determined solely by how much money you had. It had nothing to do with a man's sexual desire for his wife.
ReplyDelete"Franklin Roosevelt had seven(!) children. You think he was motivated by his lust for Eleanor?"
Last I read, FDR was heterosexual and Eleanor had a vagina, hips, and breasts, even if not a beautiful face. BTW, check out the young Eleanor and you'll find not a beauty, but not the unattractive woman of midlife either.