On to the thoughtstream... I wonder about homosexuality and the repulsion that most people, guys in particular, feel towards it. Most guys are so ridiculously macho (or insecure?) that they can't even stand to look at another man's erection, whether it's in a piece of porn or an anatomy textbook. On the other hand, many of the gay men I've met or seen portrayed in popular culture are very effeminate. Some are almost caricatures of women, expressing a femininity so exaggerated that it borders on the comical. What's odd is this difference between macho behaviour and gay behaviour.
Depending upon who you ask homosexuality is either learned or inherent. Some of the problems lie in the struggle between gays and the heterosexual middle class. Deep in suburbia lies the hope that homosexuality is learned and parents can keep their sons 'pure' by protecting them from the predations of the gay community. On the other hand, gays have expressed the fear that if homosexuality is inherent then genetic manipulation can provide the means to permanently eliminate homosexuality before birth.
In Prometheus Rising, Robert Anton Wilson writes that sexual preferences, including fetishes, are the result of imprinting on the Social-Sexual Circuit that opens at the beginning of puberty. Since it's near-impossible currently to predict exactly when imprinting will occur, we can't truly predict the future sexual needs of any particular person, although we can be sure that social pressures will force 'vanilla' heterosexuality onto most people. Of course, those who don't conform to their social norm will emulate it to avoid persecution. This notion of sexual imprinting brings some interesting thoughts to mind.
As I stated earlier, many men are repulsed by anything remotely homosexual. Ordinarily, I'd categorize it as a natural taboo like incest. The one problem with that is that incest is not a natural taboo. In ages past, 'keeping it in the family' was practiced, particularily among the ancient Egyptians, in which case, it's believed that a pharaoh was expected to marry his sister. In fact, on further thought, many historians believe that Spartan soldiers weren't allowed to marry until after retirement but until then they'd have male companionship. Less is known about the sexuality of ancient Celts but historical and mythological texts mention Celtic warriors sleeping together while on campaign. Of course, there's also the myth of Gwydion and Gilfaethwy, male cousins who, for the crime of rape, are punished by their uncle Mathonwy. Transformed into animals of opposite gender, the cousins are sent into the wild to mate with one another and return to their uncle with the young they produce. Now, do we accept that those societies were split into gay and straight sub-cultures or is there another explanation?
I'm personally beginning to suspect that Robert Wilson might have one of the better maps of sexuality. If this is the case then why didn't ancient warriors have the same repulsion to homosexuality that modern society does? This might reveal one of my biases but I'm looking at the Judeo-Christian reality-tunnel. In this reality-tunnel, sexuality has only one purpose and that is to propagate the species. Even heterosexual sex for the purpose of pleasure has been frowned upon for centuries, forms of sexual expression that can't result in pregnancy or threaten the gene pool, such as homosexuality or incest, are automatically taboo.
One question still nags at the back of my mind, however. If sexual preference is a result of imprinting and imprinting can't be accurately predicted or controlled, is there no guarantee of heterosexuality in any particular society? If that's the case, could a society fail to propagate simply by choosing the wrong taboos? Take the mythical Amazons, for example, if their sexism reached a point where heterosexuality became taboo, they'd die out after one generation, excepting the children of those sexual deviants who broke the taboo.
The only solution I can think of is that both the Semantic (3rd) and Socio-Sexual (4th) circuits deal with time, not to mention that Gaia/DNA/Force of Evolution, (however you want to call it) would demand propagation. Needless to say, I have a lot more meditation on this subject.
Addendum (Dec. 5, 2003): Having said all of that, I present a piece of work I'd whipped up several months ago. I call it...
