From: phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone)
Newsgroups: ba.politics,ca.politics
Subject: Re: More Evidence That Homosexuality... (too long)
Date: 19 Nov 92 17:29:08 GMT
Organization: Generally in favor of, but mostly random.

In article <102504@bu.edu> kane@buast7.bu.edu (Hot Young Star) writes:
    >The more I read, the more I believe that each of us are born
    >with "plastic brains" when it comes to sex. That is, any
    >number of stimuli may alone or in cooperation contribute to
    >the growth of our sexualities, with both positive and
    >negative feedback possible, depending on the prevailing
    >social norms and the pressure to conform.

Yes. I agree.

    >What I remark to be most important is the claim by such
    >experts as David Finkelhor, is that the more fuss parents
    >make about the abuse of their children, the more likely the
    >child is to suffer continuing self- esteem problems.
    >Finkelhor has found that parents who don't display anger and
    >desire for revenge in front of their children, who instead
    >only give encouragement and stress that the child should have
    >no shame or guilt, increase the likelihood dramatically that
    >their child would recover.

Yes. A 9-year old girl sexually "used" by an adult male will almost always
suffer all kinds of problems from the event. Yet, in another culture we
have talked about before, the Digger Indians, such use of young girls
was common, accepted, and *apparently* no trauma result, because that
was "the way the tribe did things".

    >Therefore, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that abused
    >children whose families are hostile toward homosexuality
    >(largely thru the perpetuation of the myth that gay men are
    >boy molesters), would be more likely to become homosexuallt]y
    >ego-DYSTONIC, than children whose families are not
    >heterosexist. After all, the child naturally blames himself
    >at first, and if there are ready examples of "badness" talked
    >about by heterosexist family members (i.e. gay men) then the
    >child is likely to conclude that therefore he is bad and must
    >be "gay", too.

That could very well be true.

    >The other important point to make is that if you talk with
    >gay men and lesbians, large numbers of them who went through
    >emotionally unsure times in their teens (transitory
    >ego-dystonic sexuality problems), you'll find that most of
    >them started out being aware of their sexualities in a
    >morally neutral sense. In other words, they saw nothing wrong
    >at first until they were subsequently exposed to more and
    >more heterosexist messages (and typical teenage intolerance,
    >of course).
    >
    >This would contrast DRAMATICALLY with the nature of the
    >ego-dystonism possibly produced by child abuse, which is in
    >all likelihood from the onset of abuse.

Again, perhaps true.

However, while one could argue that, for example, the sexual use of 9-year
old children by adult males is a socially "relative" thing, that does
not make it right or wrong, nor does it imply that any arbitrariness
is wrong just because it seems arbitrary.

Two cases to consider:

1. Slavery. It has been around a long time, and was often "accepted" by
   both slaves and slave owners, as for example, in wars with the Roman
   empire, both sides took slaves. Nobody wanted to be a slave, but the
   losing side in a battle ended up dead or as slaves. Your turn today,
   my turn tomorrow. And from accounts, both sides accepted that losers
   ended up as slaves (and that the winners got to ransack the city,
   rape the women, etc.).

   Today, to be a slave is considered an abject horrow. From accounts of
   2,000 years ago, it was a thing you didn't want to happen, but if you
   didn't get to win and acquire slaves, well, you got to be the slave.
   Often if you were ransomed or escaped, hey, alls well that ends well.

2. Driving on the left or right side of the road. This is a totally arbitrary
   decision. Different countries pick different sides. While it is just about
   as arbitrary as one can get, it is of the utmost important than one
   or the other of this arbitrary convention be chosen.


Sexual mores are much the same. However, unlike the total arbitraryness
of driving on one side of the road, there are foundations for a moral
basis on sexual mores.

The inherent sovereignity of the individual implies adult consent. As a
child can not give adult consent, it is immoral (because of the coercion
via lack of consensual ability) to have sex with a child.

In the same way, no what any number of people in a group may believe
about slavery, it is wrong and immoral.


So, if you are implying that any above-average "life problems" that homosexuals
may have are because of the "fuss" that people makes about homosexuals,
well, so what?

While it may perhaps seem arbitrary, it is all too true that large
groups of people, in general, do NOT think, and need (about as strong
as they need food or water) very strong social conventions that are
often very arbitrary -- arbitrary but vital for large groups of people
to interact.

If it gives you any comfort, the social conventions that would most
promote ease of interactions would also likely make me an outcast.


-- 
I believe Gennifer Flowers.

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Newsgroups: ba.politics