Where does Grero start? Gay versus a sliding scale of orientation.

[schwep]

Hi,

Great work! I am really lost in admiration at your perseverance in putting all this down in writing. I agree with a lot of what you write and I will refer only to myself in the following lines, simply because I lack the time to produce a properly researched argument.

For most of my life I thought about myself as gay although I do not fit neatly in the definition. I had a somewhat gay childhood, enjoying girly things and mostly shunning rough play, although not entirely. I had both male friends and female friends but I was often quite obsessed with some of my "girl-friends". At 12, in summer camp I made a "boy-friend" who I was completely infatuated with. I was tortured by jealousy when he spent time with someone else and I sought his company all the time. We parted ways and I grew up a bit. At 14 I was still in the same class as one of my childhood "girl-friends" and I remember that once our inner thighs accidentally touched. I got an instant hard-on and had to sit down.

To cut a long story short, what do you make of this scenario: child, quite effeminate; puberty, infatuated with a boy; teenager, deliberately seeking to have sex with girls, early 20's, seeking sex with men while having a girlfriend; adulthood, married with a kid and sometimes having anonymous sex with men?

I was never really interested in a long-term relationship with a man but I'll be damned if I don't luuurve having sex with men.

Don't you think that may be a bit of evidence against your theory which stashes gay men away neatly into a separate gender? I think I am relatively "straight acting" although I make no special effort. I have never surprised myself flapping my hands and throwing my head back laughing but I think it's possible I could register on some people's gaydar, although nobody ever came to me and called me gay to my face, without knowing about what I do in private. And, by the way, I do enjoy sex with women although I was never really "hungry" for it.

As far as I'm concerned this is very much a mirror image of some straight guys so I think maybe Kinsey was right after all, we are all somewhere on a scale; there is no neat box for the effeminate gays.

So where do you think does the Gay "ghetto" end and the Grero "camp" begin?

Schwep

[andkon]

First, thanks for your kind words.

Second, gay as an effeminate gender is not my theory. It's the "folk belief" of most people, which admittedly counts for little except that science confirms it. Given that most people do then also stereotype all same-sex attraction as effeminate, it's good to have a term for specifically masculine-on-masculine attraction.

Third, take a look at video 0040. If we combine the Kinsey scale with gender we see the continuum between grero and gay. It is hard to tell where one begins and one ends but the polar opposites/archtypes do exist.

[schwep]

OK, so in the purple cluster are the effeminate gay guys but Grero are at the top in an orange band. I realise that this is work in progress but let's just look at the chart as drawn: does the intensity of colour represent numbers? Do you really think that there are two polar opposites, masculine guys and effeminate guys but very few, if any, in between? This chart is really useful to summarise the issue and to highlight its biggest problem: the dearth of empirical evidence.

My experiences of sex with men are somewhat restricted to a self-selected minority who feel the need for no-strings-attached sex, but I can say that the number of masculine men who seek gay sex is quite large. Some of them identify as gay, some as bisexual and some as straight but all clearly enjoy sex with men. Some of the most masculine men I have met preferred a passive role! This confirms your theory but is only anecdotal evidence...

I recently read a text by Richard Dawkins in which he relates the story of research about bees communicating geographical information  to each other using "dancing". Some scientists were initially skeptical, even derisive towards the proponent of the theory but one piece of brilliant research convinced everyone.

(see page 3 at http://www.bikerman.co.uk/images/books/Dawkins/articles/Dawkins,%20Richard%20-%20God's%20Utility%20Function.pdf)

Humans are more complicated and more difficult to trick but similar clever research is needed here. I am actually quite optimistic that this kind of research is possible. I live in the UK and have noticed that many teenage males have internalised the acceptance of homosexuality to the point where they openly display physical affection towards each other. Only a few years ago this would have been classed as "gay" and therefore open to derision and abuse. Also the easy access to gay porn must have familiarised a lot of males with the images of sex between men, reducing their fear of it. I remember your reference to the research using the plethysmograph but I believe more evidence is needed to produce a chart like the one you propose. Empirical evidence would shift opinion slowly towards accepting the shades of grey and this would be a blessed relief to a lot of people.

Keep up the good work and, if you have the opportunity, try to find work in this field. It cries out for articulate, motivated and open minded people.

Schwep

[andkon]

OK, so in the purple cluster are the effeminate gay guys but Grero are at the top in an orange band. I realise that this is work in progress but let's just look at the chart as drawn: does the intensity of colour represent numbers? Do you really think that there are two polar opposites, masculine guys and effeminate guys but very few, if any, in between? This chart is really useful to summarise the issue and to highlight its biggest problem: the dearth of empirical evidence.

Colors just represent gay, grero, and straight; not numbers. The white are the unnamed things in-between.

My experiences of sex with men are somewhat restricted to a self-selected minority who feel the need for no-strings-attached sex, but I can say that the number of masculine men who seek gay sex is quite large. Some of them identify as gay, some as bisexual and some as straight but all clearly enjoy sex with men. Some of the most masculine men I have met preferred a passive role! This confirms your theory but is only anecdotal evidence...

It's anecdotal, but plenty have said the same thing to me. At some point all those anecdotes add up :-)

I live in the UK and have noticed that many teenage males have internalised the acceptance of homosexuality to the point where they openly display physical affection towards each other. Only a few years ago this would have been classed as "gay" and therefore open to derision and abuse. Also the easy access to gay porn must have familiarised a lot of males with the images of sex between men, reducing their fear of it. I remember your reference to the research using the plethysmograph but I believe more evidence is needed to produce a chart like the one you propose. Empirical evidence would shift opinion slowly towards accepting the shades of grey and this would be a blessed relief to a lot of people.

Gay acceptance is good. Unfortunately, gay is seen as feminine and thus there's a need for something more masculine to push guys into more than just physical affection.

Keep up the good work and, if you have the opportunity, try to find work in this field. It cries out for articulate, motivated and open minded people.

Thanks!

Also, if you don't mind, can you tell me how you meet guys?

[schwep]

Hi,

I take your point that anecdotal evidence does build up but we humans have a tendency to see what we want to see. The majority are uncomfortable with the idea of fluid sexuality and they can explain away anecdotal evidence.

For example, you mention the behaviour of Roman emperors to illustrate the propensity of most males to indulge in sex with both males and females.

Some may say that Roman emperors are hardly representative of the general population of Ancient Rome or of any society. They had very nearly absolute power, based on their control of the Roman Legions, and while the first Roman Emperor, Augustus, was at great pains to pacify the Senate, subsequent emperors often ignored any check on their power, hence their dis-inhibited behaviour. Even the "wise" ones like Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan or Hadrian could do more or less what they liked, perhaps not because there was such tolerance of male-male sex in Ancient Rome, but because they had so much power that they became easily "bored" with "normal" sexual outlets and were free to experiment and indulge in more and more "outrageous" acts.

Others may say that a lot of what we know of Roman Emperors' private lives is simply political gossip, designed to manipulate their image to favour the incumbent at the time that the history was written. So a lot of the juicy stories, such as those about Caesar and king Nicomedes, and Caesar and Augustus were designed to harm their reputations.

That is why I think that clever research is necessary, controlling for as many of the variables as possible. If the results of this research refute the idea of males being widely capable and willing to have sex with other men, society permitting, I would not hesitate to accept the result, provided that the research is solid. But I strongly suspect that the opposite is true, as you do.

Regarding my "encounters" they happen in the usual places, typical for the UK, saunas, bath houses, outdoor cruising areas, department store changing rooms (once in the US, in Boston, Ma ;-) from ads on Craiglist, etc. so not really representative but still, a sample.

Cheers,

Schwep

[andkon]

...but because they had so much power that they became easily "bored" with "normal" sexual outlets and were free to experiment and indulge in more and more "outrageous" acts.

I've heard this before. This excuse still negates the current theory whereby sexual orientation is innate and not made by boredom.

Others may say that a lot of what we know of Roman Emperors' private lives is simply political gossip, designed to manipulate their image to favour the incumbent at the time that the history was written. So a lot of the juicy stories, such as those about Caesar and king Nicomedes, and Caesar and Augustus were designed to harm their reputations.

There's two answers to this. Being penetrated was negative but other exploits with men and women are still mentioned without any hint of harm. Also, the actual sources (summed up by Homosexuality [sic] in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents by Thomas K. Hubbard) do suggest a universal homoeroticism; the Roman emperors are just the most concise data set that reflects the rest of the culture.

Regarding my "encounters" they happen in the usual places, typical for the UK, saunas, bath houses, outdoor cruising areas, department store changing rooms (once in the US, in Boston, Ma ;-) from ads on Craiglist, etc. so not really representative but still, a sample.

Anything long-term come of these?

[schwep]

This excuse still negates the current theory whereby sexual orientation is innate and not made by boredom.

You are right, of course, the "boredom" theory is actually folk wisdom. It is the first "explanation" that most parents in denial will latch onto. "A bit of discipline, a bit of healthy activity and all these 'twisted' thoughts should disappear". Nevertheless, it does have a kernel of truth, in that the more time and opportunity one has to pursue sex the more open-minded one might become.

Ironically, this folk wisdom appears to show that most people can imagine circumstances in which they would...

I wonder sometimes whether the system of beliefs that, until recently, proscribed homosexual behaviour and nowadays tolerates it only with the condition of labelling the participants as gay, is something that has evolved to keep a certain kind of jealousy at bay. In societies where males are strictly segregated from females, I believe that homosexual activity in youth is quite widespread but marriage is supposed to stop it. In societies in which females have a choice to select their mates, however, it seems to make sense that those engaging in homosexual behaviour should be labelled and ghettoised. How would traditional women deal with men not actually needing them for sex? It may be a little bit threatening, and not only to the females. There are two guys at my wife's work that are greatly feared for their powerful alliance which almost nobody can fathom... One of them is married with a kid, the other unmarried but with a history of relationships with women. We went to the office Christmas party and from there to pubs and clubs until late. At 2 am the most fun can be had in gay bars; everybody and their uncle goes there... To cut a long story short, I caught them blowing each other  in the toilets, only because I was also entertaining the thought and looked over the partition. I haven't told anybody, boys will be boys...

other exploits with men and women are still mentioned without any hint of harm

Again, could we put this down to their particular type of slave-owning society in which sexual access to slaves was accepted? Things are quite different in our society. I wonder, even if we peeled off the judeo-christian veneer, would we enjoy as much freedom sexually as we think? I don't know, but if research showed that we could, we might...

Anything long-term come of these?

No, but commitment wasn't sought. I am committed, believe it or not, to my family. This is something I need to do occasionally, with another consenting adult. Of course the thought of a relationship with a man has crossed my mind. I watched "A Single Man" and I envied their love, but as the Spanish Philosopher says 'Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia'.

All the best,

Schwep