Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Explaining the LGBT Explosion

betonit.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#11

Post by version_five »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #8

I find it reasonable to think that people can broaden their sexual interests over time somewhat like their experience of foods, arts and even work. I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality" because it was used so long a an excuse to persecute homosexuals. But like many arguments in our society, I think it is the wrong hill to die on. Because to overly concern oneself with winning the argument…

Can't agree more. You see these imo weird and almost religious arguments that we need to justify that something is good and natural by some kind of divine standard in order to accept it. And as you say, that if we can't show that, it's ok to discriminate.

We, both legally through government and as a societal standard, should not be discriminating about what people do (whether its sexual, religious, or whatever), regardless of their internal motivations.

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#12

Post by oofbey »

The mantra “it’s not a choice” was a valid counter point to hideous attempts to “cure gayness.” But it never sat well with me. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, so why should there be anything wrong with choosing to be gay?

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#13

Post by krapp »

oofbey wrote: post #12

The mantra “it’s not a choice” was a valid counter point to hideous attempts to “cure gayness.” But it never sat well with me. There’s nothing wrong with being gay, so why should there be anything wrong with choosing to be gay?

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are cultural constructs, but sexual attraction isn't (although its expression can be culturally influenced and mediated.) I think what's being presented here is a false dichotomy - after all, closeted gay people don't become straight because they choose to act straight.

To me, you can choose to act "gay" (whatever that entails) but but to be gay or straight isn't a choice. However, sexuality may be more fluid than many people realize, and this realization and the process of sexual self discovery, may appear to be choosing one or the other, because our society requires that it be one or the other.

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#14

Post by jleyank »

What if the percentage of people is each segment of the “relationship lifestyle” hasn’t really changed over time. Rather, the willingness to engage and be open and get reported has changed. There’s always been lifelong bachelors or spinsters or whatever, and the way sexuality was discussed or referenced has certainly changed.

Maybe as another writer speculated that sexuality is a drive that can be applied in various directions and the choice or non choice can be influenced. But ya need fur genes to get fur.

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#15

Post by zozbot234 »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #8

I find it reasonable to think that people can broaden their sexual interests over time somewhat like their experience of foods, arts and even work. I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality" because it was used so long a an excuse to persecute homosexuals. But like many arguments in our society, I think it is the wrong hill to die on. Because to overly concern oneself with winning the argument…

> I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to "acquired homosexuality"

Acquired homosexuality is actually very common in some settings, such as prisons. The catch is that not all homosexuality is equal; the kind of homosexuality that's common in prisons is easily described as toxic, hypermasculine, domination-based sex. The common social aversion to acquired homosexuality is clearly based on the idea that it must necessarily, to a greater or lesser extent share these characteristics; that much is clear even from primary sources that reflect this same aversion. But we should be very clear that the modern LGBT movement is advocating for something remarkably different: equal relationships between people of the same sex based on express consent, perhaps best typified by the idea of legal gay marriage (where the 'marriage' descriptor should be read as neatly encompassing analogous traditional practices, such as sworn brotherhood). How far can that sort of culture spread and even perhaps be "acquired"? And can it socially outcompete the legacy model of homosexuality as masculine domination, even in places where that model still carries some influence? I think these are very interesting questions for those who want to take this topic seriously, and not be limited by historical or present-day ideological stances!

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#16

Post by smegsicle »

a few 1990s studues showed 35-40% of homo/bisexual men self reported to being abused as children. it seems unthinkable that physical child abuse could have exploded to keep that percentage up, but maybe something else is having a similar effect?

Childhood sexual abuse among homosexual men. Prevalence and association with unsafe sex

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9127231/

Self-reported childhood and adolescent sexual abuse among adult homosexual and bisexual men

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014521...

Re: Explaining the LGBT Explosion

#17

Post by antifa »

haffi112 wrote: post #10

What about survivor bias here? Many gay men died of AIDS in the late 20th century, which might affect the numbers significantly. In any case, I think the right interpretation is that more people are comfortable with reporting their sexuality truthfully and people are more open towards exploring their sexuality.

I can think of two reasons older people are still in the closet.

1.) They aren't in the closet, they just don't share personal things with people like the author.

2.) They remember the one time a university had a cool list of LGBT people and when the Nazi's stole it to use as a kill list.

Post reply on HN