dreamer_easy | (no subject)

So I thought I'd cheer myself up by watching The Making of Me avec la Barrowman. There's lots of lols, but I defy you to watch the bit with Pete, who was subjected to the whole Clockwork Orange bit in an effort to torture teh ghey out of him, and not want to have a little cry. JB is appalled to learn that homosexuality was only decriminalised in Scotland in 1980. He wonders if, had he grown up there instead of Illinois (the first US state to drop its sodomy laws, in 1961), he might have been one of the many gay kids who take their own lives.

To balance that a bit, here are some cute dogs.

ETA: That reminds me -

murasaki_1966 pointed me to a New Scientist news item: Bisexuality passed on by 'hyper-heterosexuals'. "How can there be 'gay genes' given that gay sex doesn't lead to procreation? The answer is remarkably simple: the same gene that causes men to like men also causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children." Interesting... now do the same experiment with lesbians!

Threaded | Flat

I completely forgot about that.. I got it the day it came out and it's been sitting on my DVD player since.

So... is it entertaining and informative?

Watched it the night it ran, and then had a 2 hours long argument with my mom on why Barrowman and other gheys did not 'choose' it as a lifestyle choice, or, as my mom says, turn to the same gender as a result of abuse or trauma. ALL of them, she says. How the Bible says this and that etc...

*headdesk*

there's no point in arguing with closeminded stupid people shouting from behind a Bible :(

I have to say I found that show fascinating, endearing and heartbreaking, and raised my already high opinion of JB to new heights. The bit with the twins, one of whom was sweetly camp and the other who was all about the action figures, was a real eye-opener.

I didn't see the John Barrowman doc, but there was a lot of ranting about it among my LJ friends, the vast majority of whom I know through the UK bisexual community. There was a lot of anger at how the whole documentary was structured around the gay/straight dichotomy (one which most halfgays, understandably, dismiss as a load of bollocks).

I think it serves to highlight the danger of this fixation on the hunt for a 'gay gene': it's just sending the world back to this ridiculous mentality of 'either/or', when it has always seemed more likely to me that the answer will turn out to be 'both'.

On a related note, a good friend of mine posted to his LJ not long ago posing what I thought was a very important question: in terms of equality, why does it matter whether same-sex attraction is down to nature or nurture (or even a conscious choice)? Isn't it important to fight for acceptance regardless? I understand that a definitive genetic 'answer' would allow same-sex attracted Christians to say "God made me this way," but I don't think that the end-goal should be an answer which shuts up the Christian Right (although that would be lovely). If a genetic predisposition to same-sex attraction becomes identifiable without the underlying bigotry being addressed, surely they'll just shift their focus from 'we can make you straight' to 'excellent, we can ensure that you aren't even born'. *shudder*

They gay rights lobby, in Britain at least, is immovable from its stance of 'being gay is not a choice'; however, I know a handful of gay/bi people who say that, for them, they were aware of elements of choice. The idea of sexuality as a spectrum goes some way to making sense of this: depending on to what extent you are same-sex attracted, and how acceptable it is in your own society, you can choose to act on it or not. I probably include myself in this category - I seem to be predominantly attracted to the opposite sex, and I live in a country where I have been able to be open about my same-sex attraction in relative safety, so I have been able to choose to explore that. If I lived in Saudi Arabia, I would probably have kept that side repressed.

Sorry for the rambling comment as usual. Take it as a compliment: you get me thinking. :)

The thing that got me about the documentary was that Barrowman's quest was performed in true grail-hunter style: "There must be one answer, and by licence-fee-payers' money, I will find it!"

There might be a gay gene. Abnormal levels of testosterone in the womb might affect a child's sexuality in later life. A mother's immune response to carrying a male child might have a similar impact on later males foetuses. Matt Ridley, in his excellent book "Genome", mentions apart from rare cases, that no one thing has overall control of how a human body develops. Genes are expressed as a result of other genes, or hormonal shifts, and hormonal shifts can be brought about by genetic expression or environmental factors, and how we respond behaviourally to the environment can affect which genes get activated and our hormone levels. (Sadly, it was too long ago that I read the book to find the chapter. I remember that he likened trying to control a human body to trying to control an economy, though.)

So Mr Barrowman decided that he must be gay because he wasn't the first male foetus incubated by his mother? All well and good, except that I am an only child, and several of my partners have been either only children or sole or first-born sons. Where does that leave us? Faking it?