|
|
| Sexual Orientation Posted: November 29, 2004 |
 |
|
Sacred sex swings sexual orientation back & forth, awakening you to sexual wholeness.
This sexual orientation swing is internal -- your mind sways back & forth between male & female essence as you rise to Sacred Union. Your male essence is ecstatic rapture, the full transcendental stillness of sacred orgasm. Your female essence is the sweet flow of desire in and out of that state. When you drift in and out of orgasm, repeatedly, you swing back & forth between male & female sexual orientation, until they fully merge in Sacred Union. Then you are always in orgasm and always out, both still and full of desire -- together in your male and female essence.
This is how sacred sex uses sexual orientation to take you beyond it. It awakens you to truth of your sexuality:
You are not a human being with specific sexual orientation; you are a spiritual being with universal orientation.
You are not male or female attracted to women or men. You are a duo-sex soul seeking spiritual wholeness. That wholeness is male & female essence together. You swing back & forth between attraction toward the two until you reawaken to your innate gender wholeness. Then you are both male & female, with universal orientation. You rise to Universal Love, beyond sexual orientation.
Sacred sex mirrors in minutes what your soul does over many lifetimes. The soul takes on different sexual orientations in different lifetimes in its search for spiritual wholeness. That wholeness is sexual by nature, and our various sexual orientations represent the soul's evolutionary need for that lifetime.
Commonly, we think of ourselves as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. But these are merely attractions we have in this lifetime, in our current body. We like men or women not merely for the reasons we commonly think, but because they complete us -- they are a missing part of ourselves that can only be filled by that gender. This desire for completeness is really a soul yearning. The soul needs either male or female essence in its life for balance at that stage of its evolution. In worldly life, it finds that through sexual orientation.
Sexual desire is nature's way of attracting the soul toward that which it most needs to awaken to sexual wholeness. If the soul needs more masculine nature, it takes on a male sexual orientation. If it needs feminine nature, it takes on female orientation.
The same swing takes place inwardly in sacred sex. If your soul needs ecstatic stillness, you take on this 'male' orientation. If you need ecstatic flowing desire, you take on 'female' orientation. In this way, your own experience takes you through the swings of sexual orientation on the way to sexual wholeness.
In getting to the heart of male & female attraction, sacred sex speeds up your evolution to spiritual awakening. You accomplish in minutes & hours what commonly takes lifetimes.
You also rise above the petty labeling and stigmatizing of various human sexual orientations. You swing through them all, just as your soul has done over countless lifetimes, and they become just a footnote on your journey to sexual wholeness. Your current sexual orientation is just the tool your soul chose in this lifetime to rise above orientation altogether.
Universal souls have universal orientation. Only a limited soul - limited by the belief that it is only a male or female body - can have a specific sexual orientation.
In this way, sacred sex gives you a whole new perspective on sexual orientation.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION DEFINED What does sexual orientation really mean? There is much debate, disagreement, confusion, ignorance, and prejudice over the topic today. In order to clear this up, we must first understand the components of sexual orientation itself -- sex and gender.
Sex & Sexual Orientation The most basic element - sex - sheds the most light on sexual orientation. Sex is the desire for wholeness. We desire sex as a way to feel whole and complete. Sex takes us to orgasm, beyond the confines of limited awareness to a place that transcends even our individuality. We lose ourselves in ecstasy, and feel complete in that.
Ultimately, the purpose of sex is to take us beyond bodily life to spiritual awakening, where we see ourselves as body & soul together. Then we are permanently whole and complete.
This is the driving force behind sex whether we're aware of it or not. The yearning for orgasmic release is our inmost desire to transcend limited experience and become ecstatic.
This transcendental aim of sex reveals the secret of what sexual orientation is. Surprisingly, it has little to do with gender at all.
Sexual orientation is attraction to that which makes us feel whole.
In baser terms, we might say that it is attraction to that which brings erotic pleasure, because it's the sensual pleasure that leads to sexual release.
Regardless, both definitions indicate why sexual orientation goes beyond gender. Gender is but one of many factors that influence pleasure and make us feel whole. There are many things in life that have sex appeal. These are all part of our sexual orientation.
In fact, in the broadest sense, sexual orientation extends beyond sex to life itself. There are many non-sexual things that attract us in life and make us feel whole. Family, career, friends, hobbies, and recreational activities are but a few. We may even use the term 'sex appeal' in describing our vintage car, new adventure sport, or other prized attraction. It's useful to see the connection between these desires and sexual desire to better understand sexual orientation.
Sexual energy is life energy. The same vital force that inspires desire for anything in life drives sexual desire. All desire, sexual or otherwise, flows toward that which satisfies us and makes us complete. Sex may be the most potent expression of life energy, but it is the same energy nonetheless. (For more on the link between life energy & sex energy, see Sacred Desire.)
Freud more or less argued this in asserting that sexual desire is directed towards a wide variety of objects, and that sexuality pervades the human condition. He called sex energy 'libido' and cited alternative (non-sexual) means of expression. Even today, many athletes, artists, and others, speak of channeling their sexual energy into their non-sexual endeavors. The only difference between sexual orientation and these is sex.
Thus we can (and do) speak of our professional, religious, recreational, and other orientations. We have many such orientations, none of which exclude the others. From this we see how deceiving it is to apply narrowly defined labels to sexual orientation. Orientation is simply what attracts us by bringing wholeness to life. Sexual orientation is what does that sexually. That may be many things, of which gender is only one.
The best examples of this may be sexual fetishes. Fetishes go beyond gender as a sexual attraction. Is a man's sexual orientation still heterosexual if he is only aroused by women when they dress a certain way or perform certain acts? If he is heterosexual, why is he not aroused by women in general?
When we define sexual orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, we limit and compartmentalize our sexuality. We mistake its broad continuum for divided parts, not only in terms of gender, but other sexual stimuli too. This in turn creates false understanding of people as we attempt to fit various shaped pegs in the square holes of our pre-defined orientations.
Worse, using labels such as these invites conflict from people who impose moral codes on various orientations. Such people judge one orientation 'right', and all others as 'deviant'. They then seek to define sex itself (and all relations, including marriage) by that false moral code.
Sex can no more be defined by the nature of its participants than can any other activity, like say, sport. If we narrowly define sport as competition between two athletes, and call everything else a perversion of sport, we marginalize team sports, solo sports, non-competitive sport, sport games between non-athletes, fitness sports, adventure sports, recreational sports, competitions against the elements or judges' standards, etc., etc., etc.
Sport is simply the expression of athleticism. In what form and between whom are the individual orientations of each sportsperson. Likewise, sex, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior." The details of that expression are the unique, innumerable - and therefore ultimately unclassifiable - sexual orientations of every being on our planet.
One of the most basic refutations of sexual orientation theory is self-pleasuring. Masturbation, as it's commonly called, is typically a person's first sexual experience and continues throughout life. Does this mean that everyone is more fundamentally autoerotic or self-sexual than heterosexual? If so, is that deviant?
Woody Allen's famous line from Annie Hall actually gives insight into the sexual orientation of it: "Hey, don’t knock masturbation. It's sex with somebody I love."
Sarcastic humor aside, this simply shows self-pleasuring for what it is: acting on our most innate sexual orientation. Our body sexually appeals to us, and we desire it in ways that make us feel whole.
Self-pleasuring is inexplicable by strict sexual orientation theory. If one is heterosexual, one should only be attracted to: a) the body of another, and b) the opposite sex. Yet masturbation defies both these 'norms'. Strictly speaking, self-pleasuring is homosexual. As heterosexuals, we are not supposed to be attracted to genitals of the same gender, yet we obviously find our own most attractive. Again, is this deviant?
Some religious and sexual conservatives no doubt consider self-pleasuring deviant. But they would be hard-pressed to label the following atypical orientation the same:
Many spiritual figures throughout history have directed their sexual energies toward the chosen object of their faith or worship. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, St. Teresa of Avila, canonized by the Catholic Church, is among the most notable. This 16th century nun left behind several diaries, which clearly show her 'sexual orientation':
| Quote: |
| "Good Jesus...Fondle me with your divine hands, cover me with divine kisses, that I may give to you the fullness of my love.... Clasp me to your bosom, hold me tightly to your body, that I may always be faithful and loyal in my love for you." |
Beyond the issue of celibate vows, how are we to understand this 'dei-sexual' orientation. As a heterosexual woman, Teresa would be expected to have sexual attractions toward men. Yet hers are clearly toward her God. Is this deviant, or exalted? For Teresa, Christ made her perfectly whole. So naturally, her sexual orientation was to him, no matter how unconventional.
Conservatives may try to wriggle out of the moral implications of this by pointing to the basic male/female relationship here. But similar words by a male canonized saint, John of the Cross, leave no such wriggle room:
| Quote: |
"Upon my flowery breast, kept wholly for him alone,
There he lay sleeping, and I caressed him, in a breeze from the fanning cedars."-- Dark Night of the Soul, Prologue, stanza 6
"There he gave me his breast;
there he taught me a sweet and living knowledge;
and I gave myself to him,
keeping nothing back;
there I promised to be his bride."-- Spiritual Canticle, stanza 27 |
These examples show sexual orientation to range far beyond gender. It is simply the object - any object - of sexual attraction.
Christians who may be concerned about all this might find solace in the following fascinating fact:
Etymologists cite the first confirmed use of the phrase 'sex object' in 1911, in reference to Jesus.
Here is an opportunity for Christians to see sexual orientation beyond the narrow confines of hetero- & homosexuality, and accept it simply for what it is: one's channeled flow of sexual attraction. That can be for mundane aims or spiritual ones, as the above examples attest.
Later we'll see how virtually any sexual orientation can be a means to spiritual awakening through sacred sex. This makes any moral judgment against particular sexual orientations groundless and irrational. (For more on sexual moralism, see Sacred Sex Values.)
In speaking of various alternative sexual orientations, we must also include asexuality, in which a person has no sexual interest or attraction at all. From a dualist gender perspective that expects attraction to the opposite sex, this clearly violates the 'natural order of things'. But can we assign an immoral label to it? In fact, many religious traditions might call it exalted. It is just one more example of how contemporary sexual orientation labels fall short.
Gender & Sexual Orientation Even if we accept a limited scope for sexual orientation, one that only applies to gender, it is still deceivingly simplistic to classify people as hetero- or homosexual. This is because it relies on clearly distinct genders. As fully explained in the Gender Identity Forum, such exclusive gender division does not exist.
Gender is not a black & white duality; rather - like everything else in life - it is a single spectrum ranging from male to female, including all points in between. People exhibit different degrees of each gender, even identities completely opposite that of their bodily gender. In this context, it's impossible to neatly classify sexual orientation. Compounding the situation is that sexual orientation depends on the gender identity of two people -- both sexual partners.
This is clear when we look at the broad spectrum of gender-based sexual orientation. There are manly men, effeminate men, and men in between. Likewise, there are feminine women, mannish women, and women in between. The heterosexual and homosexual attractions between them are as varied as the individuals themselves. There is no typical sexual orientation.
In this light, the attraction between a masculine man and an effeminate one is much less distinct from heterosexual orientation than we commonly view it. The same applies to women. In both in hetero- and homosexual relations, male gender identity runs the spectrum from macho to effeminate, and female gender flows from butch to femme, as they're known among lesbians.
Cases in which a person's gender identity is completely opposite their bodily one are even more extreme. If someone with male anatomy has a female gender identity and is attracted to men, is that homo- or heterosexual orientation? To 'her', it is perfectly natural heterosexual attraction, but most in society don't see it so.
Along with the infinitely diverse gender identity spectrum, there is another gender principle that affects sexual orientation: attraction between opposite and like qualities.
Typically, sexual orientation attracts us to our gender opposite -- someone entirely different that makes us complete. That results in common male-female relations. But it isn't always so.
Just as attraction of opposites is a natural phenomenon, for example in magnetic attraction, so too is the law that like attracts like. Chemical bonding is one of the most basic examples, responsible for the buildup of all matter in creation. Oxygen atoms bind together to form O2, which we breathe in the air. Carbon bonding assumes even more forms, as carbon chains of different numbers combine with other elements to make up myriad basic life molecules. These carbon compounds are so prevalent that they are the major subject of organic chemistry.
Chemical bonding also relies on the attraction of opposites between electrons & protons. This shows that 'hetero' and 'homo' attractions coexist in nature, often side by side.
We see these natural homo-relations on many levels in people.
On the broadest level, it applies to us as a species -- we mainly relate, especially sexually, with our own species. While this may be too broad an example to be distinctly relevant, it reveals a fundamental value of homo-relations: it maintains and strengthens bonds within a group. Earlier we defined sexual orientation as attraction to that which makes us whole. This 'birds of a feather flock together' truth offers an alternative to complementary opposition. It shows that we can feel whole not just by pairing with our opposite, but also by bonding with those who reflect our own qualities. Thus we see ourselves outside -- an expansion or completion of our internal self.
This idea is much more obvious on levels within human society. There are many such homo-relations that are perfectly natural and absolutely accepted, so much so that we take them completely for granted, thinking and speaking little about them and lacking even language to define them. To coin many phrases, our homo-orientations include: homo-national, homo-cultural, homo-racial, homo-religious, homo-professional, homo-recreational, and homo-scholastic. We are most easily attracted to people of our own nationality, culture, race, and religion. We join together with like-minded professionals to form businesses. We hang out with others who share our recreational interests. We feel camaraderie with alum from our own school. We are even homo-fanatic -- we easily bond with others who root for the same teams we do. All these homo-relations expand ourselves and make us feel whole. In many such cases, opposites even repel.
Closer to home on the relationship front is homo-personal orientation. Typically, we choose partners like ourselves physically, emotionally, personality-wise, and interest-wise. We seek out our own body type, complexion, and general appearance. Sensitive women seek out sensitive men, rugged women look for rugged men, sports-minded men dig sports-minded women, professional men marry professional women, and artsy men attract artsy women. It is perfectly natural for our deepest love bond to develop toward someone much like ourselves.
Though these various homo-relations center around the idea that like attracts like, they are not are gender-based per se. Homo-personal orientation, for example, is typically toward the opposite gender. One other homo-relation though, is gender based. That is our homo-social orientation. Most often, we choose friends of our same gender. These deep bonds, like love relations, can last lifetimes. And we accept these same-sex relations not only as perfectly natural, but also as socially healthy.
We have countless examples of openly acceptable homo-social activities -- ladies night out, guys sports night (or poker night), girls shopping, guys chilling, dinner between girlfriends, guys hanging out together at the bar, etc. We do all these because they round out our lives. They help complete us. They are different aspects of our overall orientation in life. They are things that attract us.
And they are not so distinct from homosexual activities as we first think.
To illustrate this, there is even a blur between homo-social and homosexual activities between cultures. In the West, male handholding, embracing, and kissing are considered homosexual activities, whereas in many Mid-East and Eastern cultures, these are perfectly natural homo-social bonding acts. In fact, like our own homo-social bonding, they are encouraged as ways of strengthening the social fabric. Some cultures even have ceremonial rites affirming long-term commitment between same-sex friends.
Of course, we have hetero-relations in all the above areas too. We may choose a life partner who is different than we, who complements us through polarity of opposites. We also have friends of the opposite gender with whom we bond socially. We spend recreation time with people of varied interests. We interact with people of different race, religion, nationality, etc. The conclusion then is that homo- and hetero-relations are both acceptable, and simply a matter of personal choice.
While all the homo-orientations indicated above are not exactly the same as sexual orientation, neither are they entirely different. All describe our attraction to others on some level. All contribute to our wholeness as human beings. And all strengthen social bonds. The question then arises, why in all other forms is homo-orientation accepted alongside hetero-orientation, whereas in sexual orientation we often consider it deviant?
No rational answer exists because there is no truth to it.
We would never consider dividing our professional, social, recreational, cultural, religious, or any other relations into homo/hetero categories and labels (if we do, it is viewed as small-minded and prejudiced). Yet we readily apply this false division to sexual orientation. Is sex the only sphere of life to which the 'opposites attract' principle morally applies?
The fact is, that entire rule loses significance for all those who are not 100% male or female in every way -- gender roles, traits, behavior, mannerisms, dress, hormones, and anatomy. That includes nearly everyone. Those toward the middle of the gender identity spectrum do not even have strong polar opposites as others do. They may be attracted to other mid-spectrum people, or to those at either end of the spectrum. Are they then heterosexual or homosexual?
Ultimately though, immoral orientations do not exist because sexual orientation categories are false to begin with. Homosexuality and heterosexuality refer to same-sex and opposite-sex orientation, respectively. But if gender is fundamentally unified to begin with, there is no such thing as 'opposite' sex. That in turn renders 'same-sex' orientation meaningless -- same-sex compared to what? ALL sexual orientation is ultimately same-sex, because we are all part of the same male/female gender spectrum.
The truth of life is that we are not homosexual or heterosexual; we are simply sexual, attracted to various values on the sexual spectrum.
Terms like male, female, same sex, and opposite sex have their value in distinguishing between different values we see in the world, just as black and white do. And we can use them as appropriate to communicate meaning, so long as we recognize that, like black & white, they are not fundamentally distinct, but rather are linked by infinite subtle shades of gray. Most important, their essential unity means they cannot be morally distinct.
Sexual orientation has the same fluid range as does gender identity. It is a single spectrum ranging from male to female attraction, including all attractions between. We cannot categorize points on a spectrum in narrowly defined terms. And we certainly cannot divide a continuous spectrum into normal & deviant -- where is the dividing line? It cannot be found because there is none.
The conclusion is clear: current sexual orientation labels are not only woefully inadequate, but also are false. A new paradigm and language are needed.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION SPECTRUM The range of gender identity, which goes far beyond the body, explains the great variety of sexual orientations seen in society today. It suggests that, like gender identity itself, sexual orientation is a spectral range, not a polarized duality. Even in so-called 'heterosexual' relationships, both partners exhibit varying degrees of masculine and feminine traits. Though we don't view them as such, they represent fine distinctions in sexual orientation. All those fine degrees together comprise the spectrum of human sexual orientation. It is a single, all-inclusive spectrum.
This view not only fits our experience in the world, but also it is borne out by research. Alfred Kinsey, a pioneer of sex research in the U.S., developed the 'Kinsey Scale' of sexual orientation in the late 1940's. Rather than identifying people as exclusively heterosexual or homosexual, it represents a range of orientation from one to the other. Large survey samples placed men & women throughout the spectrum.
A German sexologist named Magnus Hirschfeld published an even more gradated measure a half century earlier, in 1896. He not only used a 10-point scale rather than Kinsey's 7-point one, but also measured same-sex and opposite-sex attraction independently. Thus, whereas Kinsey's scale portrays homosexuality and heterosexuality as inversely proportional, Hirschfeld acknowledged that one can be, for example, 100% attracted to the opposite sex and 100% to the same sex.
In a 1985 book called The Bisexual Option, Fritz Klein added another factor -- that sexual orientation can change over time. Klein also included a much broader range of measures than others have, including some non-sexual such as friendships. This fits with the idea discussed earlier that social and sexual orientation are not entirely distinct.
All of these support the idea that sexual orientation is a dynamic continuum, not a fixed dichotomy. Kinsey's findings were published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953). In the first work, Kinsey said:
| Quote: |
| "Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects." |
This unified understanding of life, and the illusion of duality in all its forms, is fully explained in the Myth of Evil.
In this context, homosexual and heterosexual labels lose their meaning altogether. In fact, it was only in the late 19th century that the term 'homosexuality' came into existence, as scholars, etc. sought to classify different forms of sexuality. One etymology dictionary lists 1892 as the date of first printed use of the word. Before then, society did not define people by sexual lifestyles or lifelong orientations, though homosexual acts clearly existed. They saw them simply as sexual acts.
Henry Havelock Ellis, an early western sexologist, wrote of the term soon after it was coined in his 1897 book, Studies in the Psychology of Sex. Ellis said, "'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it."
Not surprisingly, those who have what we commonly call alternative sexual orientation, view themselves differently than the 'experts' who label them. Many refuse to be categorized or define themselves as 'all (or none) of the above'. The alternative sexual orientation movement has even adopted a rainbow-striped banner as its flag, strikingly parallel to the idea of an orientation spectrum.
Rainbow Flag - symbol of the LGBT movement
(Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender)
You can get some idea of the vast range and subtle distinctions of sexual orientation by imagining pairings on the gender identity spectrum.
ALTERNATIVE SEXUAL ORIENTATION Sigmund Freud claimed that all human beings possess innate bisexuality, which becomes monosexual during the course of our development as sexual adults. On the subject, he said:
| Quote: |
| "[W]ithout taking bisexuality into account I think it would scarcely be possible to arrive at an understanding of the sexual manifestations that are actually to be observed in men and women." -- Three essays on the theory of sexuality, p. 220 (1905). |
Kinsey's research corroborates this view. His mega-surveys during the sexually conservative 1940's, found that most people were at least somewhat bisexual -- showing some attraction to both sexes, though one is typically preferred. According to Kinsey, only 5-10% can be considered fully heterosexual or homosexual.
Both though, may have missed the deeper significance of the theory and finding. It is not that we are innately bisexual; it is that we are innately sexual. Bisexuality is pan-sexuality -- it includes everyone. Bisexuality means one may be sexually attracted to anyone. Our innate sexuality may orient itself in any number of ways.
If nothing else, this exactly matches the picture of the duo-sex soul that takes on a body and a sexual orientation on its path to spiritual wholeness. At our deepest soul level, we transcend gender identity, and may be attracted to anyone. It may very well be that for most people, taking on the body of a particular gender is enough to limit our orientation to the opposite sex for this lifetime, but it doesn't change our underlying nature. That omnisexuality expresses itself in myriad ways, unique to each soul, in a rainbow of sexual expression.
The most common of these is male/female. Male-female attraction can be understood in numerous ways, centering on the idea that opposites attract. This can be appreciated in terms of:In all these cases, sacred sex between man & woman leads a merging of male & female essence in Sacred Union.
At our deepest soul level, we each - regardless of gender - have both God & Goddess within. We can all experience their ecstatic merging within ourselves. This is why it is possible for people of any sexual orientation to rise to Sacred Union. All that is needed is inner wholeness. As we learned earlier, we can find this through any orientation.
Everyone, heterosexuals included, can better understand their own sexuality by learning about the multi-hued rainbow of sexual expression.
Demographics Not surprisingly, the percent of the population that possesses an 'alternative' sexual orientation (anything other than heterosexual) varies widely depending on many factors. These include the strictness of the definition, social suppression, exposure to sexual alternatives, and others.
Some define homosexuality as a self-identity, leading to lower demographic percentages. At the other end of the scale are those who define it as any erotic response to homosexual stimuli, giving much higher demographic rates. In between are definitions based on desire, fantasy, behavior, and lifestyle. For example, some say any desires qualify, others say it must be an act, and still other maintain it must be a habitual act.
Social pressure and conditioning also greatly impacts demographic findings. In cultures where homosexuality is shunned, survey respondents are much less likely to admit to alternative orientations. In especially repressive cultures it may even be impossible to undertake studies. Governments of such closed cultures may also withhold or skew results to portray a better picture of their society.
Lack of exposure to sexual alternatives means many may not even know the full extent of their orientation. Lack of exposure typically parallels the level of social repression. Citizens of such cultures are discouraged from experimenting sexually.
With those limitations of accuracy, below are demographic findings for several Western countries. The lack of Eastern data is due either to lack of scientific interest or funding, or to repressive reasons stated above.
| Country | Men | Women | | US | homosexual: 2-5%
bisexual: 5-15% | homosexual: 1-5% | | UK | homosexual: 3-6% | -- | | Canada | homosexual: 1-6%
bisexual: 1-6%
any same-sex exp: 14% | homosexual: <1%
bisexual: 1% | | Australia | homosexual: 1.5%
bisexual: 1%
any same-sex exp: 8% | homosexual: <1%
bisexual: 1%
any same-sex exp: 15% | | Germany | any same-sex exp: 2-18% | -- | | France | any same-sex exp: 4% | any same-sex exp: 13% | | Denmark | same-sex intercourse: 2.7% | -- | | Norway | any same-sex exp: 3.5% | any same-sex exp: 3% |
Note: the above represents only a sampling of studies; others may show different findings.
Also, data may exist for groups for which no result is shown above. |
As examples of factors that influence such studies, consider the following:
In one US study, different results were obtained from the same subjects, simply by using written vs. oral response. For males, written response indicated 1.5% rate for homosexual acts, while oral response showed 5.5%. Apparently, respondents thought they could more easily hide behind anonymous written responses.
The Australia study is a good example of how the strictness of the definition affects results. One study found that only 2.5% of men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual, but over 8% reported some same-sex attraction or experience. For women, the jump was from 2% to 15%. Also, half the men and two thirds of the women who had same-sex experience identified themselves as heterosexual, not homosexual.
Canada showed similar findings, and the range of US results are also due to definition differences.
The German finding may show the role of social conditioning. The wide-ranging results come from two identical studies. The 1970 version gave the high number, while the 1990 one gave the much lower percent. Psychologists believe that with research indicating sexual orientation is innate (not a choice), fewer wish to be labeled as such. Sexual permissiveness in the 70's era no doubt also played a role.
One thing is clear from the above studies: that occasional same-sex activity far exceeds same-sex orientation. This is clearly in line with the picture of sexual orientation that we have portrayed. It indicates that even though our primary attraction may be for the opposite gender, we are sometimes attracted to or aroused by our own gender. This is yet another reason to remove sexual orientation labeling. People who have one or two same-sex relations in their life are clearly not homosexual and barely, if at all, bisexual. Yet they are more than pure heterosexual. They are, as we've been saying, simply sexual with various attractions.
But there is even more to it than this. Just as occasional homosexual activity is more common than the lifestyle, so are homosexual desires and fantasies more common than activity. More prevalent still is homoerotic response -- arousal due to any homosexual stimuli, such as seeing an attractive same-sex body at the beach or in the gym.
Kinsey's detailed studies show this as well as any. His results revealed that nearly half of the male subjects reacted sexually to both genders at some time in their adult lives, and that over 1/3 had at least one homosexual experience.
Kinsey's work has been criticized by some for the samplings used, though his institute claims there is no significant change in results even when the data is 'cleaned'. Even if the numbers are substantially inflated, they indicate a much freer sexual orientation than is commonly believed. And this, remember, was in the demure 1940's.
The gay community often uses such data to suggest that homosexual orientation is more prevalent than we think. But this is as wrong as using low-end data to suggest that it is rare. In both cases, the error lies in defining ourselves as either heterosexual or homosexual. What the data indicates is simply that sexual orientation is a spectrum, and that attraction toward one end of the spectrum neither defines us as limited to that, nor denies our possible attraction to the opposite end as well.
A glib comparison might be to one's taste in movies. Men may be mainly attracted to high-powered action films, while women prefer 'chick-flicks' (both of which, by the way, indicate what we might call 'homo-cinematic' orientation). Yet if such a man likes an occasional drama or romantic comedy, or a woman enjoys an action-thriller once in awhile, does this change their 'orientation'? Of course not. It only indicates the error of labeling (and worse of stigmatizing) one's movie orientation in the first place. The truth is simply that we like movies, and that while we all have our preferences, we enjoy other genres too -- variety is the spice of life.
Sex is no different. We are sexual beings and we like sex. We have our preferences and we may enjoy other sexual activities too. We are not heterosexual or homosexual; we are simply sexual.
This distinction is actually indicated in the different survey results for men and women. Most sexual orientation studies show fewer homosexual women than men. But this is largely due to a difference in self-labeling. Men are more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual, whereas women are more likely to engage in same-sex activity without labeling it homosexual or identifying themselves as bisexual (for example, in the Australia study above).
This has more to do with male & female gender traits than differences in orientation. In general, women are more inclusive than men; they therefore accept various sexual activities within the framework of their heterosexual orientation. Men are more exclusive, tending to label themselves according to specific activities. Female sexual orientation therefore tends to be more fluid than that of men. Women are more likely to indicate 'choice' as a factor in their sexual orientation.
This female perspective is more like what we suggest here. Women tend to see themselves simply as sexual beings, with various attractions. Men - and the paternalistic society they've created - need to define, classify, and label sexual orientation. This male view has its value, but so does the female one. A balanced perspective is best.
The above concerns mainly the gray area between male & female orientation that we commonly call bisexuality, or in our view, pansexuality or simply sexuality. If it does in fact turn out that true female homosexuality (no attraction to men) is less prevalent than its male counterpart, researchers should consider the following intriguing explanation: the 'default' sexual orientation is male.
This is because the default human gender is female. In the womb, any child - even genetic males - will develop as female without the influence of prenatal testosterone (see Gender Identity & Male/Female Androgyny for a full explanation of this). If the default gender is female, the default sexual orientation may very well be male unless it too is changed by the sex hormones. Thus male orientation may be more common than female.
We'll discuss the impact of hormones, and more, on sexual orientation next.
Sexual Orientation Influences The 'cause' of sexual orientation is one of the most heated and controversial debates of modern society. Much research and many studies have been done, but no conclusive evidence points to a single factor. That in itself is likely the significant finding -- that there is no one cause for sexual orientation. It is better then to speak of influences rather than causes, and there are several of them. We'll start with the most elemental -- genetics.
The most seemingly simple study of this is through 'twin' studies. These compare homosexuality rates between identical twins, fraternal twins, and general siblings. One such study (Bailey & Pillard, 1991) found 50% correspondence for identical twins, versus 25% correspondence for fraternal twins, versus the societal average 2-5% correspondence for general siblings. This clearly indicates some genetic influence, but leaves questions too. Why are not all of the identical twins identically oriented? The findings therefore suggest that there is a genetic influence, but that other factors are also at work. (Other studies also found lower correspondences; one - Bearman & Bruckner, 2002 - found no twin correspondence at all.)
Other research that points to some genetic influence shows that homosexuality may be hereditary, passed down maternally.
One of the problems with hereditary theories though - and the genetic factor in general - is that evolutionary selection does not support it. Homosexuals are less likely to reproduce, so their genes would fade from the gene pool. However, one intriguing finding presents a different picture.
An Italian study (Camperio-Ciani, et al., 2004) found that female relatives of homosexual men have more offspring than those of heterosexual men. This means that homosexual genes, if they exist, are prolificly passed down through heterosexual carriers.
There are two plausible explanations. One is that the gene has different effects on men and women, making the man homosexual and the woman more fertile. The other is that the gene simply promotes sexual attraction to men. Men become homosexual and women become very heterosexual, i.e. fecund.
Researchers are looking for the exact genetic marker that determines sexual orientation. One that has been proposed (Hamer, 1993) is identified as 'Xq28' on the X chromosome. Many researchers though, dispute that claim. Most also believe that a single genetic marker is unlikely.
Regardless, genetics only predisposes conditions; other factors play their own role.
One of the major influences is hormonal. The impact of sex hormones on all aspects of our sexuality is underscored by our very sexual development in the womb. Our gender is not, as commonly believed, primarily determined by our XX or XY genes. The major factor in determining whether we are born male or female is the level of testosterone to which we're exposed in the womb (again, see Gender Identity & Male/Female Androgyny for more on this).
Prenatal sex hormone levels change more than our obvious genitalia. They alter all of our secondary sex characteristics too. Many of these are subtle tweaks in brain structure and functioning that lead to behavioral changes. Many researchers believe that among these are sexual orientation.
The most compelling evidence for this is found in men & women with conditions that change sex hormone levels (or the body's response to them) in the womb. Men with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) lack working receptors for testosterone; it therefore does not masculinize the fetus. Individuals with complete AIS (as opposed to partial) essentially develop as women. Notably, they are typically sexually attracted to men. Similar effects are found in women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). In these women, the adrenal glands secrete unusually high levels of male hormones in the womb, masculinizing the female fetus. Such individuals essentially develop as male, and are usually sexually attracted to females. (See Gender Identity for more on AIS & CAH.)
In both cases, the prenatal sex hormone level, not genetics, determines sexual orientation.
Some animal studies also indicate that sex hormone levels alter orientation.
At the same time, science has yet to find clear correlation between sex hormone levels - whether prenatal, neonatal, or in adults - and sexual orientation.
One of the more fascinating, and scientifically accepted, studies shows the odds of male homosexuality increase by 33% for each older brother by the same biological mother (Blanchard & Klassen, 1997).
The explanation for this seemingly strange fact is intriguing: male fetuses, being the opposite sex of their mothers, provoke a maternal immune response that strengthens with each successive male fetus. The maternal antibodies attack male antigens that directly or indirectly masculinize the fetus, leaving it more feminine. This results in a 'natural' female sexual orientation toward men.
This finding is particularly important for two reasons. First, homosexuality engendered this way is perfectly natural, not due to any 'defect' of the child. Second, the cause does not even lie with the child, but rather the mother. Moralist arguments that condemn the child in such cases are themselves morally culpable.
This study has been replicated over 20 times and is one of the most reliable markers ever identified for sexual orientation. Still, the finding only accounts for a modest percentage of male homosexual cases, meaning that it too is just one of the many ways in which sexual orientation evolves.
A less conclusive (but equally interesting) finding is one that involves finger length, of all things. The link to sexual orientation is less surprising than it seems, since scientists know that the same gene governs the fingers and testes/ovaries. Finger length is also known to be sexually dimorphic, meaning there are basic differences between men and women. Also, a long ring finger relative to the index finger has been shown to correlate with high prenatal testosterone in men & women.
In women, the ring finger and index finger are typically near equal in length. In men, due to higher prenatal testosterone, the ring finger is longer.
Researchers (Williams, et al., 2000) found that the finger ratios of lesbian women were significantly different than heterosexual women, and in line with the ratios of heterosexual men. This suggests higher prenatal testosterone in lesbian women, presumably accounting for their 'male' attraction to women. A later study (Brown, Finn, Cooke, & Breedlove, 2001) found finger length ratio differences in self-identified 'butch' and 'femme' lesbians.
Another study (Lippa, 2002) found finger length ratios indicating lower prenatal testosterone exposure in gay men.
Different studies have shown different, even conflicting, findings though. One reason for this is the known ethnic differences in finger length ratio. Not all studies controlled for this variable (the Lippa study did). Still, scientists believe that useful findings will come out of further study in this area.
There is one last, and curious, hormonal finding that should be noted. Some studies show a correlation between male homosexuality and higher prenatal testosterone levels. Among these are ones that show more masculine finger length ratios (Williams, 2000, and Robinson & Manning, 2000), and larger penis size (Bogaert & Hershberger, 1999, and Nedoma & Freund, 1961) in homosexual men (prenatal testosterone masculinizes the sexual genitalia, literally growing the penis).
These findings are significant because they fly in the face of stereotypical views of gay men as 'effeminate'. They show that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, comes in all shapes and sizes, and cannot be categorized. Machismo homosexuality is but one of the many hormonally influenced sexual orientations.
And like genetics, sex hormones themselves are but one of several sexual orientation determinants.
Another growing area of research is brain structure and functioning. Several studies suggest that the brains of homosexuals function like those of opposite gender heterosexuals. That is, gay male brains act & respond like female heterosexual ones, and lesbian brains behave like male heterosexual ones. Researchers have tested a variety of known sexually dimorphic traits in order to verify this.
One study (Savic, et al., 2006) at the Stockholm Brain Institute shows that lesbian brains respond to pheromones like male heterosexuals. They are attracted to the smell of female sex hormones, not to male ones. The study is a follow-up to an earlier, more conclusive, finding that gay males respond to male pheromones like heterosexual women.
Sexually dimorphic brain structure and functioning is known to result from prenatal testosterone exposure. Therefore, any influence in this area is most likely due to sex hormone levels in the womb.
The final conjectured influence on sexual orientation is learned behavior or imprinting. Many who condemn homosexual behavior suggest this to be the main influence. However, the bulk of research suggests no more than a secondary influence. No major professional health organization supports it as a primary cause.
Assertions of dysfunctional or amoral parenting, or absence of a strong mother or father figure fail to account for the majority of homosexuals raised in loving, supportive, traditional environments.
The most convincing evidence against the learned theory comes from the study of otherwise typical males who for various reasons had either damaged or malformed genitalia. Causes for this range from circumcision accidents to 'micropenis' (under 2 inches erect) to fetal development conditions. In the 1960's & 70's, these were commonly treated with sexual reassignment surgery. The infant's genitalia were surgically switched and the child was raised as a girl.
Despite female anatomy and rearing however, subjects showed near universal attraction to women in adult life. William Reiner, a psychiatrist and urologist at the University of Oklahoma, evaluated over a hundred such cases. The only ones in which XY adults were attracted to males were those with AIS or other prenatal conditions that prevent male sex hormones from masculinizing the fetus.
Other findings that refute learned behavior theory are those indicating some physical correlate to sexual orientation. Whether it is penis size, finger length, birth weight, or any other measurable statistic, these factors cannot possibly be post-natal. Even most brain structure and functioning differences found have prenatal causes.
That is not to say that early childhood development does not play a role in some instances. It is known that the first several years of life shape the personality (in the context of its genetic predisposition), after which time we are 'hard-wired' to think & act in certain ways.
One mechanism for this may be akin to imprinting in animals. It is known that animals raised by other breeds or species often develop sexual attraction to their adoptive group. For example, sheep raised by goats show near universal sexual attraction to goats. The extent to which a similar mechanism acts in humans is not clear. Certainly, children pick up behaviors by observing others.
There is even a plausible, though unproven, explanation for the elder brother finding referenced above. Males with older brothers may be more likely to be gay because they develop a deep male bond with those brothers from infancy. Caution should be used in adopting this theory though, as related parameters, such as birth weight and others, indicate a prenatal effect.
Overall, the preponderance of research indicates a mainly biological basis for sexual orientation. Unfortunately, moral issues cloud the debate, leading some to cling to the belief that homosexuality is learned. The motive, it would seem, is merely to justify its moral condemnation, which is otherwise indefensible.
Science has researched numerous areas and found limited and mixed results across the board. We assume this to mean that we haven't yet hit the answer, but it's increasingly clear that all these scattered findings - showing some influence here and some cause there - are the answer. Many factors influence sexual orientation and work in tandem; none are solely responsible. What's more, the particular influences that make one person homosexual may be entirely different than those determining the orientation of another.
True Cause of Sexual Orientation Modern science looks for the physical cause of things, and that's fine, but the physical cause is only a mechanism - an excuse, if you will - for a deeper phenomenon to occur. In this case, that more meaningful event is the entrance of a particular soul into the world. If the soul is meant to have an alternative sexual orientation as part of its growth in this lifetime, nature creates some physical mechanism by which it occurs. Whether that mechanism is genetic, hormonal, learned, or some combination of these doesn't really matter (except perhaps to satisfy our scientific curiosity and better understand it).
In that light, let's look at possible causes for alternative sexual orientation from a soul perspective.
As explained at the start of this lesson, the soul takes on many bodies in its journey to spiritual wholeness. Each current life is somewhat of a composite of previous lives, a crystallization of where you presently stand on your spiritual journey. Your past desires, habits, and traits come together to create your present. This reincarnation of your soul continues until you awaken to the truth that you are more than all those worldly traits -- that you are Universal Spirit. (For more on this, see Journey of the Soul.)
One of the things you carry with you is gender identity and attachment. Through your many male and female lives, you identify with those genders, falsely seeing yourself as only that. Your soul continues taking on male and female bodies until you realize that you are gender complete -- a duo-sex male-female soul. Transitioning back & forth between genders over many lifetimes not only balances the soul and promotes this awakening, but also frees you from body and gender attachment. (For more on this, see Gender Identity.)
This gender-changing by your soul intimately affects your sexual orientation, as you can imagine. With each new gender identity comes a new sexual orientation for your soul. The scenarios below show possible ways alternative orientation can come about in life. They are meant for illustrative purposes only; it is impossible to know the exact past influences that determine a soul's current state, and they are as varied as the number of unique souls.
The following scenarios distinguish between different homosexuals, such as those known in lesbian communities as 'butch' and 'femme'. Again, these distinctions are for illustrative purposes only; many dislike such labels and many more do not fit them.
We begin with two types of gay men: effeminate men with female tendencies, and masculine men who simply like other men. Effeminate men may be souls that have most recently spent several consecutive lifetimes as women, and are currently in transition to male soul experience.
Having been firmly entrenched in female experience and awareness for several lifetimes, they naturally exhibit feminine qualities and have the same natural attraction to men that they have recently always had. They may relate well to women as friends, and be well liked by women due to their past feminine identity. They may naturally like to 'hang out with their girlfriends'. They may even naturally feel like they are women trapped in men's bodies. The key word in all this, as indicated by italics, is 'naturally'. This soul condition is not something to devalue, demean, demonize, discriminate against, or divide society over. It is also not one for souls experiencing this to feel guilty, ashamed, less human, or less spiritual over. It is a natural condition that any soul may have experienced in the past, may now be experiencing, or may in the future.
The soul experience of masculine gays is often similar, but distinct. They may have most recently spent consecutive lifetimes as men, working, sporting, and communing with men, deeply entrenched in male bonding activities. In these lives, they were typically heterosexual, but marriage/family/sexual relations took a back seat to 'hanging out with the guys', especially as they became more entrenched in their maleness. In current life, these types of gays may feel very manly, more so even than heterosexuals. They are masculine to the point that they only relate to and understand men. They may not enjoy the company of women much at all.
Their soul too is in transition to the opposite gender as part of its evolutionary journey. They will likely experience female life in upcoming incarnations to balance their recent (and current) male ones. Their current sexual orientation is nature's way of preparing the soul for the feminine existence it will have in upcoming lives. The awareness of such souls is so used to being male and associating with males, that life as a woman would be a disorienting shock and non-evolutionary experience. They are familiar only with men and desire to be around only men.
By introducing the new experience (for them, recently) of sexual attraction to men, nature shows them a new way to perceive and relate to men. This sexual attraction to men is the common thread that will carry over into their next life, smoothing the transition to feminine existence.
As with effeminate gays, this soul condition is natural, and to be accepted and valued like any other.
The same general idea applies to lesbian women. While it basically repeats what is stated above for men, it's worthwhile expressing it as it relates to women. Women reading it may then more easily see themselves in it, and better understand, appreciate, and/or accept their life experience.
Like gay men, two common types of lesbian women are what we call butch and femme. The former are masculine women with male tendencies. Femmes are feminine women who simply like other women.
Masculine women may be souls that have most recently spent several consecutive lifetimes as men, and are currently in transition to female soul experience. Having been firmly entrenched in male experience and awareness for several lifetimes, they naturally exhibit masculine qualities and have the same natural attraction to women that they have recently always had. They typically relate well to men as friends, and may even like to occasionally 'hang out with the guys'. (This aspect of gender camaraderie is slightly different for gay women than men, not due to sexual orientation differences, but rather due to simple gender differences -- women by nature are more group oriented, men more individualistic.) Butch women may naturally feel like they are men trapped in women's bodies.
The key word again here is 'naturally'. This soul condition is not something to devalue, demean, demonize, discriminate against, or divide society over. It is also not one for souls experiencing this to feel guilty, ashamed, less human, or less spiritual over. It is a natural condition that any soul may have experienced in the past, may now be experiencing, or may in the future.
The soul experience of 'femme' lesbians is often similar, but distinct. They may have most recently spent consecutive lifetimes as women, rearing families of daughters and sharing motherhood experiences with female friends, or other ways of deeply bonding with women. In these lives, they were typically heterosexual, but perhaps rarely saw their hard-working, travelling, or even early deceased husband. In current life, feminine lesbians feel just as womanly as hetero women, and may have many as friends. They may feel they only relate to and understand women, and may not enjoy the company of men much at all. They may be exceedingly shy or even fearful of men.
Their soul too is in transition to the opposite gender as part of its evolutionary journey. They will likely experience male life in upcoming incarnations to balance their recent (and current) female ones. Their current sexual orientation is nature's way of preparing the soul for the male existence it will have in upcoming lives. The awareness of such souls is so used to being female and associating with women, that life as a man would be a disorienting shock and non-evolutionary experience. They are familiar only with women and desire to be only with women.
By introducing the new experience (for them, recently) of sexual attraction to women, nature shows them a new way to perceive and relate to women. This sexual attraction to women is the common thread that will carry over into their next life, smoothing the transition to male existence.
As with masculine lesbians, this soul condition is natural, and to be accepted and valued like any other.
The main point of these scenarios is not the specific details of each, but rather that the resulting sexual orientation is perfectly natural and best for the evolution of that soul. They are therefore not to be judged, devalued, or condemned in any way, by self, others, or society as a whole.
The transitioning of souls through various sexual orientations gives new meaning to the line, 'which way do you swing?'
Choice & Change The issue of specific cause for sexual orientation is really secondary to a larger debate: whether or not it is a choice, and whether one can (or should) change. The soul's role in sexual orientation alters this debate dramatically.
From a soul perspective, sexual orientation is ultimately a choice. But there is more to it than this. The question is part of the even larger debate of free will vs. fate. Are we free souls or creatures of destiny? Ultimately, we are free souls, but by our own free action we create our fate.
Our free actions as souls build up to form habits, and these patterns become the blueprint for future lives. What is vital to understand is that this blueprint gets cemented in our current life through our DNA, fetal development, and formative childhood experiences that together hard-wire our personality.
Choice (free will) is the deciding factor, but for all practical purposes, the weight of past choices overwhelmingly decides our current ones. We can think of this as our 'karma' for the current life. A soul takes on particular karma in a given life. At birth that karma is set; we can only act within that context to create new karma. (That is the work the soul is to do in that lifetime.) Karma is set up this way to give life stability -- we work out our destiny in a particular life as a teacher, lawyer, doctor, laborer, housewife, businessperson, etc. We may have more than one 'identity' like this in a lifetime, but there is a limiting range and typically a common thread.
Due to the weight (amount) of past karma, new karma may have only a limited effect. It is not always possible to change it. This is especially true of deep-seated traits like gender identity and sexual orientation. The more fundamental the trait, the more 'set' it is for life.
Everything in life is ultimately a choice, due to free will. But free will operates through laws of nature that govern it. These impact its effects in time. Choices made in the past cannot immediately magically be undone by a current change of heart.
More important, the soul's place in all this shows - contrary to contemporary religious views - that there is no reason to change, moral or otherwise. The orientation taken on, as determined by natural laws, is best for the soul's evolution, and should not be tampered with by man. If nothing else, from the perspective of the duo-sex soul, orientation toward men or women has little meaning -- both are false in that they are limited expressions of our omnisexuality.
Sexual orientation should be understood this way. Ultimately it is a choice, but for all intents and purposes, it is set at birth. It should be accepted as such by society. It should not be seen as a 'choice' to alter, especially on religious, spiritual, or moral grounds. If the condition of a particular soul is such that s/he is ready and it is part of their soul-work to change sexual orientation during the current life, then that is fine -- but that choice naturally comes from within.
The soul's role in our spiritual journey shows the interplay of 'nature' and 'nurture' in our evolution. Our actions build to form habits - our nature - and also create environments that reinforce, or nurture, them. In the case of sexual orientation, we may be born into a particular family situation or other circumstance in which we are exposed to an experience that impacts our orientation.
These show that the difference between the nature & nurture camps in this debate is less than we think. When gays say they are born that way, they simply mean it is a set trait in their personality, not a daily conscious choice they make. Whether the source of that trait is genetic, prenatal or neonatal hormone influence, early developmental imprinting or learned behavior, or (most likely) some combination thereof, is immaterial. All are beyond conscious control. What we call 'learned behavior' in the first years of life can be as statically set - and as impossible to undo in adulthood - as genetic effect.
All of the 'causes' of homosexual orientation collectively indicated by science have their underlying basis in its true cause -- the need of the soul. Genetic makeup, hormonal influence, childhood environment, and personality makeup all result from your composite experience and desire of previous lifetimes. Whether nature or nurture, they 'set' your sexual orientation.
The fixity of sexual orientation is affirmed by most professionals. The American Psychological Association states that homosexuality "is not changeable." In 2001, the US Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report declaring that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."
Thus, practically speaking, sexual orientation is not a choice. As a way of showing the fixity of such traits, consider the simple issue of food tastes. It can be easily shown that much of our food likes and dislikes stem from what we were fed as children (the rest comes from innate taste). Now consider your favorite food; maybe you have a steak, pizza, pasta, or chocolate 'orientation'. Ask yourself whether your attraction to that food can be changed. Perhaps you can restrain yourself from eating it, but you cannot change your innate attraction.
If this is the case with something so simple as food, which clearly is more learned than sexual orientation and less fundamental to your personal identity, how can sexual attraction possibly be changed?
A more apt example might be our particular attraction to certain types of people. We may have a 'thing' for blondes, brunettes, redheads, thin people, fat people, Orientals, Blacks, Latinos, or any number of other peculiar distinctions. Can you lose that sexual attraction by choice?
If sexual orientation is a choice, as many religious fundamentalists insist it is, then why do devout followers who are homosexual and sincerely want to change, often agonizingly so, can't? Many are driven to suicide over this conflict, indicating it cannot be changed even as a matter of life or death.
You may be able to change the behavior, but you cannot change the innate desire that drives it. If behavior is forcefully and unnaturally changed in this way, it splits the personality, dividing inner desire from outer action. This causes great psychological damage and harms the soul's evolutionary progress. Similar problems result from suppression and repression of desire.
This calls into question the real impact of counselors and groups that claim to 'change' sexual orientation. Many claim to successfully modify sexual behavior. But there is a fundamental difference between changing homosexual behavior and homosexual orientation. Living a heterosexual life that masks repressed homosexual desire does more harm than good.
There may be cases of sexual orientation that, due to weaker past influence, are not so deeply ingrained. These people may be more open to change in the current life. But this is far less common and typically applies to bisexuality, not homosexuality. Regardless, any such change should be a matter of personal choice, not imposed by society through any moral conditioning.
(While it is true that women often report choice in their sexual orientation, this is only for women who have attraction to both sexes. The choice then applies to which attraction they act on. Choice does not apply to whether the attraction is there. Either it is or it isn't.)
Because many factors contribute to sexual orientation, and the strength and nature of that orientation greatly varies, the issue of changing is not black & white. Anyone considering such a change must look in their own heart and find their personal evolutionary truth. They must decide for themselves whether they were born to accept & experience their sexual attraction as is, or to grow in attraction to the other sex. Both however, start with acceptance of one's current orientation.
Some who claim that homosexuality is a choice blame confusion about sexual orientation as the shaky ground for it. This is most commonly cited by family, friends, religious patrons, and occasionally professional counselors who themselves are confused about a loved one's homosexuality. Homosexuals themselves rarely indicate it. When someone does, it is misapplied.
Confusion about sexual orientation cannot cause homosexuality - or any attraction or desire for that matter - because confusion lies in the intellect and desire comes from the heart. Confusion is a thought; desire is a feeling -- they are distinct processes.
If you go into a store and are attracted to a particular item, you may question whether or not to buy it. You may think, "Why do I like this? I don't have enough money for it." Or you may ask yourself why you are always attracted to one type of item when you should probably buy another type. If you habitually make such purchases, you may even ask yourself why you have this compulsive attraction. You're confused about your 'shopping orientation', but that does not cause your attraction to the item. That attraction is clear. Your heart pulls you to it.
Likewise, if a homosexual person feels confused about their sexual orientation, it is only because their intellect does not understand or accept the attraction that is there. They are not confused about whether the same-sex attraction exists. They feel a clear attraction, but due to cultural conditioning, they believe they should feel attraction to the opposite sex. Thus they become confused.
Lack of self-acceptance of one's sexual orientation causes deep inner conflict. This conflict is due to struggling against an unchangeable part of your nature. Peace returns when we accept ourselves for who we are and stop trying to fit false cultural codes of how we should be. Sexual orientation is a spectrum that is as varied as the people who exhibit it.
Science may never fully understand homosexuality. But that need not leave questions as to how to deal with it. That answer is already clear. The 'why' of sexual orientation is less important than acceptance of it.
Sexual Orientation Acceptance Only morality tops cause and choice as a controversial homosexual issue. Many rationales are cited to support various views, yet like the cause debate, there is no clear answer. Or is there?
Most moral arguments against homosexuality have God, nature, and/or evolution at their basis. In order to find a real moral truth then, we must clearly understand the moral aim of these.
They are all essentially the same: to rise to peak human experience. Whether we call this God Realization, harmony with nature, evolved consciousness, or any other like term, the meaning is the same -- live our full potential.
Unfortunately, mainstream society has a limited view of these. Religion more often touts following the 'rules' of God rather than living His spirit. Evolutionary scientists see only in terms of 'natural selection' and the perpetuation of genes. Others accept only majority traits as 'natural'.
But there is basic evidence in human beings that there is more to life than this. Science knows that we use a mere 10-15% of our mental potential. From a common evolutionary perspective, this is inexplicable -- physiological form must follow function. There is no known evolutionary mechanism for creating unused potential. A different model of humanity is needed.
Religion provides this in the idea that man is created in the image of God and can live that ideal. Sacred sex and other spiritual traditions also provide an evolutionary model that explains this -- that evolution is circular, not linear. The laws of nature that come forth with creation carry an intelligent design that creation evolves to express. We grow into the ideal from which we are designed -- we come full circle. (For a full explanation of this, see Journey of the Soul.)
Our vastly unused potential suggests that our moral ideal is to rise to exalted human values like wisdom, love, and compassion. It is to shine in Christ or Buddha Consciousness, or simply a secular enlightened one. Surely this has little to do with following moral 'rules', laws of natural selection, or majority behavior.
In fact, the historical lives of religious saints, and mystics around the world point to an inner spiritual awakening that often flies in the face of accepted morals and norms. Many of these figures were outcast and persecuted for their revolutionary - even 'blasphemous' - beliefs.
Thus we find Christ forgiving the 'sin' of adultery (John 8; punishable by death under Jewish law of the time), Mohammed pardoning a 'mukhannath' (literally 'effeminate man'; Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 41, Number 4910), and other moral icons sidestepping the rules religions impose.
The truth is, it is irrational to assume that homosexuals cannot rise to exalted states of heart and mind. Specifically, sacred sex techniques, which elevate the human spirit in this way, can be practiced by anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. If a homosexual can unfold his potential and achieve spiritual awakening, how can the act be called immoral?
Yes, there are Bible verses that prohibit homosexual acts (though New Testament censure is not by Jesus). But there are also verses that indicate that the spirit behind the act is more important than the act itself:
| Quote: |
| Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.... For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.... For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. -- Romans 14:13-20 |
There is also the issue of historical context. Contrary to common belief, religious law is not static and unchanging, but rather appropriate for a given place and time. For example, the very same Bible book (Leviticus) that proscribes homosexuality begins with several chapters on animal sacrifice, laws no longer followed in Judaism.
For Christians, changing religious law is even more clear. The New Testament itself supersedes - and changes - the Old Testament covenant. Laws are amended regarding for example, diet, circumcision, marriage, and divorce.
Christ is even directly questioned about parting from Mosaic law on this last issue (Matthew 19:3-8). He gives the reason for the different law in different times: "Moses, because of your hard hearts, let you put away your wives: but it has not been so from the first."
The same can be said today of other things, including homosexuality. The people of that time did not have the understanding and acceptance of various human traits and differences that we have today. Homosexuality for example, was seen purely as behavioral, not biological. Also at the time, little was known about sexuality as a spiritual practice; only the physical act was seen.
Homosexuality is not the only sexual act that demands a more tolerant view today than in Hebraic times. The Old Testament assigns the death penalty for adultery (Leviticus 20:10) and pre-marital virginity loss for women (Deuteronomy 22:20-21). A husband and wife who have sex while she is menstruating "shall be cut off from among their people" (Leviticus 20:18).
All these points suggest a more humane, non-judgmental approach to sexual orientation, even in the context of religion. Time changes, and our conception of God and ourselves changes with it. One-time religious edicts cannot be our sole authority. (For more on religious change, see Changing Tradition/True Tradition. For a deeper understanding of spiritual morals, see Sacred Sex Values.)
There was a time when society (supported by religion) deemed left-handedness to be morally wrong. Many were forced to change, as it was believed to be a deviant act. Now we know that handedness is not a choice. We also know that it is natural, despite being a minority trait. Many psychologists even acknowledge that left-handed people often excel artistically and visually because they are right-brain activities (right side of the brain controls left side of the body).
Any left-handed person can act 'straight' if forced, using their right hand if required; but that is unnatural, damages their growth, and lessens their contribution to society.
There are many parallels in the perception of left-handedness and homosexuality, though the latter stigma is far worse. Besides the above, both occur in 2-10% of the population, are more prevalent in men than women, and may be influenced by prenatal testosterone levels. There is even some correlation between left-handedness and homosexuality. Yet society has outgrown old views of lefties. It is time we put this other outdated prejudice behind us as well.
Homosexuality is gaining broader acceptance today. It is legal in most western countries, Russia, Australia, the Orient, several African nations, and some in the Middle East. Canada, South Africa, and a few European nations allow same-sex marriage. Most cultures are moving in the direction of greater acceptance.
History of Homosexuality One thing that contributes to our lack of acceptance of alternative sexual orientation is our belief that it is a modern phenomenon of Western society, somehow the result of our 'moral decline'. That however, is not the case. Homosexuality has been documented throughout history in nearly every culture of the world. Some forms have even been sanctioned by society for their social value. These are described below. The accounts of its prevalence are by no means complete.
Perhaps the best place to start is not with homosexual people, but rather deities. Several cultures exalted (or at least accepted) same-sex attraction to such a degree that they deified it in the actions of their gods & goddesses. Examples include the Sumerian Gilgamesh and Enkidu (Epic of Gilgamesh), Egyptian gods Set and Horus, and the Greek deity Zeus with Ganymede. India also has a rich culture of gender-changing deities who have relations with gods and mortals of both sexes.
Among humanity, homoerotic art (and presumably acts) may date back to 12,000 BCE (interpretation of artifacts is open to question).
Egypt may offer the first recorded same-sex human couple in history. Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were Overseers of the Manicurists in the Fifth Dynasty Pharaoh's Palace (c. 2400 BCE). Their names mean 'joined to life' and 'joined to the blessed state of the dead', respectively; together they may be read as 'joined in life and joined in death'.
In East Asia, same-sex love has been described since the earliest recorded history, enjoying widespread acceptance and open display. In China, homosexuality was known as the pleasures of the bitten peach, and was enjoyed even by the emperors. Similarly, Thai kings had male as well as female lovers.
In the Middle East, homosexuality was also widespread and public in religious, military, and leisure settings. Africa is also said to have a history of same-sex relations, though colonialists largely suppressed it. Among the surviving customs are long-term relations between women in Lesotho.
Despite Church censure in medieval Europe, homosexual activity was common, even in the Christian monasteries and among Church leaders. Many priests, bishops, and archbishops engaged in the practice. Official Church doctrine on the subject wavered through the centuries as it walked the tightrope of moral control and self-acceptance.
In the pre-colonial Americas, many native tribes had what are today called 'two-spirits', men raised as women who married tribal males. Two-spirits were recognized for their special gifts and often made shamans in their tribe.
Homosexual activity was also common among the Aztecs, Mayans, Zapotecs, and indigenous tribes of Brazil and Peru. The Aztec god Xochipilli is said by some to preside over homosexuality (among other things). The act was held in such esteem by these Native Americans that it was included in many ceremonial rites.
All told, nearly every world culture has a history and record of homosexual activity.
Lesbianism Most of those records describe male homosexuality, but that is likely due to factors other than its preponderance over female relations. Men were more prominent and recorded the history in early civilization; female relations were of less interest. Also, women were more likely to engage in casual same-sex relations (as opposed to exclusive ones); their activities were viewed more as a part of their sexuality rather than an alternative orientation. There are exceptions to their lacking presence though.
Oriental records include descriptions of female same-sex relations, and they are also depicted in art. There are also accounts of female relations in harems of the Middle East. But the most famous record is the one that gives name to the orientation. 'Lesbian' derives from the relations between female inhabitants of the Greek island of Lesbos in the 6th century BCE. The ladies may not have had children, but they gave birth to a lifestyle heritage.
Pederasty The most widely accepted form of male homosexuality throughout antiquity is likely one that would be most frowned on today. Pederasty was an age-structured social order involving relations between men and male adolescents. It served many roles: to academically, culturally, sexually, and/or spiritually educate the youth, to train the youth in various skills such as sportsmanship and warfare, and to provide for the sexual pleasure of the older male during a pre-marital life stage. Pederastic bonds most often, but not always, included sexual relations.
The precise nature and role of pederastic relations varied widely with culture and time. These ranged from chaste relations in monastic settings to worldly education partnerships to loving companionships to social class unions. Many were not different from what we today call 'big brother' guidance and mentoring.
Pre-modern Japan viewed unions between highborn men and lower class boys with admiration, as it offered a way for the latter to rise in status. The Greeks used it as an educational tool. Some Christians and Muslims used it for spiritual education and practice.
Some societies, such as ancient Greece, sanctioned homosexual relations in the context of heterosexual life orientation. At one time in Sparta's history, all men, before marrying, were expected to engage in same-sex relations with sexually maturing youths. This was no doubt seen as a form of homosocial bonding that strengthened the culture. The practice was particularly widespread in the military, where it served to solidify combat loyalty and encourage heroic acts.
Early Greek males are believed to have passed through clear life stages, marked by (among other things) sexual orientation -- homosexuality in adolescence, pederastic bisexuality in young adulthood, followed by predominantly heterosexual married & family life.
Greece, in fact, was the first known society to institutionalize pederasty. In typical Greek fashion, philosophers and scholars debated its morality, the form it should take, and even whether it was superior to relations with women. On the latter point, many in the misogynous Greek culture decided it was. One such advocate was Plato, though he supported asexual love relations. Thus the term 'platonic relations' has its roots in pederasty.
(Not to be outdone, the famed female poet Sappho of Lesbos wrote equally praising verses about the youthful girls at her school. Some say her relations were also platonic, or should that be 'sapphonic'?)
Socrates and Alexander the Great are the best known Greek pederasts. Many also include Julius Caesar, who as a youth, was the supposed lover of Nicomedes, King of Bithynia.
China at the turn of the first millennium had a similar life-stage for pederasty. Men would enter into 'boy marriages', after a period of which, the younger male would take a wife. Families celebrated pederastic marriages in the traditional manner.
The Japanese practiced shudo, literally the 'Way of the Young'. Beginning in the religious and samurai societies during the medieval period, it eventually spread throughout society. Shudo was widely known in the Shingon school of Buddhism, whose adherents saw it as a highly virtuous act.
Among the warrior class, apprentice Samurai paired up with older warriors to be trained in love and war, as in Greece. Even the shogun (military leader) had boyfriends, in addition to female concubines.
Also like in Greece, homosexual love was seen in many ways superior to heterosexual love. It was seen to teach virtue, honesty, and appreciation of beauty, whereas love of women was blamed for feminizing men.
Korea and other Oriental cultures also have a history of pederasty.
The Arab culture also has a long history of the practice. For an entire millennium ending in the 1800's, pederastic relationships and culture were a prominent feature of Islamic life throughout its vast empire. While sodomy is considered a sin in Islam, other same-sex relations are not. For example, Muslims see beauty as the handiwork of God, and find it in a youthful face. Many Sufi mystics sought Allah by gazing upon the beauty of beardless youths. Thus many pederastic relations were chaste, only somewhat sexual, or at least private.
Cultures within the Muslim Empire known for their pederasty included the Persians, Ottomans, Moors, and Mughals. Persia (under the Safavid dynasty) cultivated a sophisticated homosexual aesthetic in its art and literature. The well known Thousand and One Nights, a collection of stories dating to the 800's in Persia and Arabia, includes tales of male love. Pederastic relations are not uncommon in Central Asia even today.
In Africa, the Azande warriors of Congo married young men as temporary wives.
Later Europe has a pederastic history too. Medieval Scandinavian warriors institutionalized the practice. Elsewhere during the Renaissance, appreciation for Classical (i.e. Greek) culture and philosophy led to more widespread relations. Among the pederasts were none other than Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Pederasty even reached to the highest realm of Christendom in the life of Pope Julius III. Another resurgence in Classicism in the late 18th & 19th centuries inspired the pederastic ways of Lord Byron, Goethe, and Oscar Wilde.
The early Celts of Britain are also known to have practiced pederasty.
In addition, the indigenous cultures of the Americas - including the Aztecs, later Mayans, and some Inuits - and also Australasia practiced forms of pederasty. Among famous later Americans, Walt Whitman was a pederast.
In fairness, pederasty was not always a positive influence. Like all acts and institutions - including heterosexual relations - it could be honored as an ideal as it was by the Greeks, enjoyed at face value, or debased. In some cultures, such as Rome (which inherited it from Greece), it was mainly a source of pleasure. In other cases, it was seen simply as an upper-class privilege, sometimes at the expense of lower classes. In still others, it sank to mere prostitution of adolescent boys, or forceful servitude of them.
Homosexual Law While the history of homosexuality is continuous, acceptance of it is not. This is reflected in the changing laws toward it over the centuries.
The first injunctions against homosexuality come in Leviticus in the Old Testament, dating to the 6th century BCE or before. These are addressed above. It should also be noted that many of the original laws, like those for diet and circumcision, seem mainly to distinguish the Hebrews from the practices of their neighbors, to maintain their separate identity. The following verse, opening the same chapter that prohibits homosexuality, indicates this:
| Quote: |
| 3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. -- Leviticus 18 |
Many sexual prohibitions distinguished the Hebrews from their neighbors. Homosexuality may simply be lumped in with these. It's worth noting that Israel today has no laws against homosexuality, and allows same-sex unions.
Among Eastern Old World cultures, homosexuality was largely legal and open, especially in the Orient. Hindu scriptures had some prohibitive codes, but mostly in line with general sexual restrictions. Buddhism and other Oriental faiths are generally tolerant of sexual orientation, as reflected in their cultures' laws. Homosexuality is officially illegal in India, but only as a carryover of British colonial law. Cases are rarely prosecuted.
Christianity followed in the footsteps of early Jewish law on this subject. From very early on though, Christian prohibition met with resistance. Constantine, in establishing the first Christian State, outlawed homosexuality in the 4th century. The 6th century Justinian Code of the Byzantine Empire followed suit; however the people of Constantinople and elsewhere resisted the law and sought ways to block prosecution. The rest of early medieval Europe (with the exception of Visigothic Spain) had no such laws though, and homosexuality was generally accepted.
Early Islam had a relatively tolerant view of the act. Quranic verses on the subject refer only to the Old Testament story of Lot in Sodom & Gomorrah. As stated above, homosexual relations were a strong element of early Arab culture, and were typically allowed without censure under Islam at that time. Today, most Muslim countries strictly prohibit homosexual acts.
By the turn of the millennium, homosexuality was widespread and openly practiced throughout Europe, and even in the Byzantine Empire where gay unions were open and legal. Evidence for the latter comes partly from Christian efforts against it. St. Peter Damian disparagingly wrote of gay sex activities, describing them as common, especially among priests. As a sign of cultural acceptance though, he could not convince others, including Pope Leo IX, to punish it.
That all changed in 13th century Europe though, when homosexuality went from being accepted and legal to punishable by death. This change in cultural climate stems from the spread of Christendom and the growing influence of its Inquisition.
The degree to which the cultural view swung is vividly clear in 'sodomy laws' enacted by King Henry VIII of England in the 1500's. Not only were homosexual acts declared a crime, but also sodomy itself had a blanket definition of non-procreative sex. That included masturbation, anal, and oral sex -- regardless of the gender(s) involved.
The beginnings of freedom in America apparently didn't apply to sex, as Puritan influence of the 1600's led to trials and convictions for homosexual acts. (As an indication of how views change though, modern New England - the early Puritan stronghold - is today the most liberal region in America in its sexual orientation laws.)
By the 1800's, Europe again swung toward acceptance, with most nations decriminalizing homosexual acts. A notable exception was Russia, which moderately criminalized it under Czarist rule, then decriminalized it with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. Poland experienced a similar switch, as would have Germany, had not the Nazis risen to power and blocked it. The Nazi regime was notoriously anti-gay. The general liberalizing trend continued in the 1900's and still persists today.
Strangely, America has lagged behind Europe on this front. In the early 1800's homosexuality was labeled a 'crime against nature' (though modern evidence shows it to be thoroughly natural, just not the norm), and it remained largely illegal until the 1960's. Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a disorder.
It did however, gain social acceptance in the 'roaring 20s'. Gay clubs were openly operated and frequented. By the mid-30's however, America grew conservative again, and homosexual activity was driven underground. The free love of the 60's & 70's brought a new wave of liberalism, and with it, decriminalization. The seesaw of public opinion changed again though in conservative 1980's, but by then legality of the act was entrenched and focus shifted toward blocking same-sex unions. That is where America stands today.
If there is one thing that the changing homosexuality laws show, it is that there is no clear consensus on its morality, across culture and even over time in the same culture. That alone is reason enough to err on the side of caution in condemning it. Human rights and personal freedoms must be protected first.
But a close look at the history of homosexual law reveals what may be a hidden rationale for its restriction. It paints a disturbing picture of those who seek to suppress it.
A common thread running through nearly all homosexual law over the millennia has been that it is far more restrictive and punitive toward male homosexuality than female. Many nations, past and present, with laws prohibiting male same-sex relations have had no laws or lesser ones for female relations. This dates back to the very source of such laws in the West -- the Old Testament.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is there a prohibition against, or even mention of, female homosexual relations. This is not because such relations didn't exist; the neighboring peoples that the Hebrews were told not to follow engaged in these acts. It is also clearly not due to oversight or preoccupation with male morality, as there are laws regarding other aspects of female sexuality (e.g. virginity and menstrual laws). In fact, female sexuality was much more restricted and their purity much more protected than that of males.
Why then isn't this 'abomination' (as Leviticus calls the male variety) condemned? If the homosexual act itself were such, surely it would be proscribed.
Its absence - and the lax legal restriction on it throughout history - suggest that the loathing is not for the act, but rather for something that male lawmakers (and religious lawgivers) fear in its male form. That something is their own potential repressed male attraction.
As shocking as that may sound, it is exactly what scientific research indicates.
A provocative University of Georgia study in 1996 surveyed males with no history of homosexual thoughts, fantasies, or acts. Questions were used to divide the men into two groups, homophobes and non-homophobes. (Homophobes exhibit extreme fear, hatred, and/or intolerance of homosexuals and homosexuality.) Both groups were then shown videos of male homosexual acts while their erotic response was measured. The results are disturbing.
The control group showed no significant response to the stimuli. In contrast, a significant number of homophobes showed signs of arousal (as indicated by penile erection measures), even though they reported no reaction.
The study confirms a known and straightforward principle of psychology: that repulsion is often an unresolved or repressed form of attraction.
The social stigma against homosexuality is so great that we repress any male attraction we feel, and seek ways to assert and affirm our heterosexuality to ourselves and others. If we believe it is sinful, inner conflict multiplies. To continuously beat down the repressed urge, we must fight it daily, even unconsciously. We develop a mentality of strict control. As lawgivers and lawmakers, we severely restrict male homosexuality. All the while, we barely consider lesbianism. (For men, lesbian acceptance even affirms male heterosexuality, as it plays to their fantasy of multiple female partners.)
Indeed, the long history (including up to the present) of homosexual activities within the Church suggests that efforts to socially suppress it are in fact inner conflicts that many Church leaders fight every day.
The saddest part of the story (aside from making a sin out of an innocent act) is that male attraction does not even define one as homosexual. The majority of males who respond to male stimulation are likely predominantly heterosexual, with occasional same-sex desires. They are, as we've been describing all along, perfectly natural sexual beings capable of enjoying the full spectrum of sexual orientation. But we don't let ourselves.
Once again, our false labels deceive us. If a man responds to male stimuli, we label it 'homosexual' desire. But if that man more strongly and often responds to female stimulation, he is at most bisexual. Even that is false because the attraction is not equal. He is, simply, sexual -- and naturally so.
Feminine Male Stigma The fear men have of acknowledging same-sex attraction likely has its basis in the 'feminine male' stigma. Men believe that desiring other men somehow makes them less manly -- it reduces their manhood.
This, however, is not necessarily the case. There are different types of male homosexuals. Some are effeminate, but others are very masculine, and still more are average. There is even research evidence to support this, including the penis size studies indicating that gay men are exposed to more prenatal testosterone than straight men. This has led to 'hyper-masculine' explanations for some homosexuality (as opposed to 'hypo-masculine', or reduced masculinity).
The warrior cultures of Greece, Scandinavia, and elsewhere are evidence of this. Homosexuality in these groups clearly was not a result or a sign of effeminate male traits. It was, in fact, a display of manhood. In what may be the best example of how changing social perceptions influence sexual orientation, ancient Greece and Rome saw heterosexual relations as a feminizing influence, not homosexual relations. The belief was that feminine qualities rubbed off on men who spent time in the company of women. Too much was seen to emasculate men. In contrast, male same-sex relations were viewed much as a 'sparring' activity that virilized men. These views are exactly opposite today's perception, which sees womanizers as 'studs' and male gays as 'queens'.
There is truth to both views -- men do become softer under the influence of women. The stereotypical hen-pecked husband is the most blatant example, but the same is true to a lesser degree in virtually all heterosexual relations. So why does modern society not deride these feminized males in the same way it does gay ones?
The ancient view of masculine homosexuality is not entirely lost either. The example of modern gays in the military indicates that this tradition survives. Masculine gays are often even distinguished from effeminate ones in modern society by the type of sex acts they engage in. Masculine gays often prefer what is called frot (male-to-male genital rubbing) over the 'less macho' anal intercourse.
Society tends to lump male homosexuals together more readily than it does females. We typically don't view lesbians as less feminine unless they are also 'butch'. The same distinctions exist between male homosexuals, but we often label them all as feminine anyway.
Even where male gays are effeminate though, the stigma is due to a false double standard, not an inherent devaluing of manhood. Society readily accepts - even encourages - women to adopt male traits, but frowns on men who display female traits. This topic is discussed in the Gender Identity Forum.
'Crime Against Nature' One justification given for the moral stance (and laws) against homosexuality, especially by religion, is the claim that it violates nature. This is despite evidence indicating that homosexuality is mainly biological in origin; that is, inherent to a person's nature.
The main arguments behind this claim are twofold. First, there is the observation that it is not the norm in nature. Second, it seems neither to serve an evolutionary purpose, nor to fit a natural evolutionary model.
The first point carries no weight whatsoever. Minority numbers do not make a trait unnatural. We already mentioned left-handedness. Genius is also a minority trait. Is it a crime against nature? Blue eyes and red hair are both minority traits too. Many would say that blue eyes are a preferred trait. And nearly every unique personality trait we have is shared by less than 50% of the human population. Are we all unnatural?
As for evolution, we have already explained that it means fully evolved potential and inner awakening. Such a state can be attained by anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. We've also defined sexual orientation as attraction to that which completes us and makes us whole. By this we evolve to spiritual wholeness. Whatever sexual orientation we have serves this evolutionary purpose.
Beyond this though, are other points. First, not every activity must be evolutionary in a biological sense. Mountain climbing, skydiving, drag racing, and other risky adventure sports certainly don't support biological evolution, yet we don't censure them as unnatural. All desires - sexual and otherwise - comprise our overall life 'orientation'. They attract us because they contribute to our sense of wholeness. That is their evolutionary role, and that makes them natural.
Many sexual pleasures aren't biologically evolutionary (i.e. procreative). Yet only the most conservative thinkers call them unnatural, and even they don't stigmatize them like homosexuality.
Also, for whatever reason, homosexuality has endured as a human condition, despite its apparent reproductive disadvantage. It has not faded from the natural gene pool. Thus it can't be deemed unnatural on that ground.
Furthermore, we have already shown that homosocial relations (which are a part of homosexual ones) have evolutionary value to society. They strengthen social bonds. But even on a personal level, homosexuals contribute to society in many ways. Besides the usual contributions they may make like everyone else, they bring special qualities too. Like any minority group, they bring not just a fresh perspective, but also traits specially represented by that group.
Gays & lesbians combine the traits of men & women in ways not commonly expressed. Men and women each have archetypal qualities that support their success in different activities. Yet many roles in society demand, or at least uniquely benefit from, traits commonly associated with both genders. Gays and lesbians may be specially suited to succeed at these roles. They may more easily bring male & female aptitudes to a particular task.
As far as same-sex unions and family rearing, gays may be better able than straight men & women to juggle the demanding maternal & paternal roles of parenthood. This offsets the 'disadvantage' (if there is indeed one) of same-sex parenting.
Ultimately though, we do not need to justify gay existence on the basis of social contribution any more than we defend anyone's existence on functionality.
As a final rebuttal of the 'against nature' argument, we can look to nature itself. Homosexuality has been observed in nearly 1,500 species in the animal kingdom. In some species, like penguins, same-sex pairs mate for life. In bonobo apes (chimpanzees), female same-sex relations account for a full 60% of sexual activity in the species; male relations increase the number. Research on homosexual rams has found brain structure & sex hormone differences not unlike those found in humans -- gay rams were biologically more like ewes.
The common response to this, particularly from religion, is that humans should be 'above' animal behavior, and there is truth to that. But there is another view as well. God created animals and animal behavior. Animals have limited, if any, free will. How can activity that is nearly universal among God's instinctive creatures at the same time be sinful among His freely choosing ones?
It implies that God created animals with instincts that are 'against nature'. That is not only theologically absurd, it contradicts scientific observation. The natural world follows clear natural laws that result in evolution. All behavior in the animal kingdom is part of that.
It also contradicts the idea that man is created in the Image of God. Religion would argue that homosexual behavior is part of man's 'fallen' nature. But if it is instinctive in humans as it is throughout the rest of the animal kingdom, it is part of our created nature -- the way God made us.
How then do we contrast human and animal behavior?
What separates man from animals is not so much our actions, but rather the awareness behind them. Our behavior is basically the same. Like animals, we eat, sleep, groom, mate, rear our young, provide for family, build home, 'work', play, communicate, create social bonds, display group behavior, protect ourselves and kin, and more. We simply do them with greater intelligence and awareness. Moral action lies in developing this awareness, not petty do's & don'ts. It lies in recognizing our harmony with our Creator and creation, not dividing it into right and wrong.
Fighting an Illusory Evil It may very well be that the moral debate over homosexuality is a non-issue altogether. Common experience is that we are attracted to a particular gender for the qualities of that gender, not whether it is the same as or different from us.
We are not heterosexual or homosexual (or bisexual) per se, we are attracted to men and/or women. If we have a male attraction and happen to be male ourselves, we call it 'homosexuality', but that may be a misnomer. No one says, "I want to meet an opposite sex partner." We say, "I want to meet a guy" (or woman). It's the traits of a sex that turn us on, not their relation to our own.
If we are attracted to blondes and happen to be blond ourselves, is there a difference - or anything wrong - in that attraction, compared to brunettes who are attracted to blondes?
To this end, many professionals have dropped the terms heterosexual and homosexual in favor of ones like 'androsexual' (attracted to men) and 'gynosexual' (attracted to women). In this light, one person's attraction to men or women is no different - or less natural - than that of any other, even if that person happens to be the same sex as those he or she is attracted to.
This is just one more way in which the sexual orientation labels we use are wrongly applied. These labels fail to adequately describe the past history and present experience of human sexuality. They do not reflect current research on sexual orientation, nor do they fit our current understanding of it. They are not even founded on a true meaning of gender, let alone gender attraction. We apply them to sexual orientation, but not to a single other life orientation. They contribute to social prejudice, and when applied to law, they result in gender-biased justice.
Perhaps most important, they do not fit the self-identity we have regarding our sexual attractions. We are simple human beings attracted (or not) to other human beings. We don't make grandiose scientific, philosophical, psychological, sociological, and/or moral statements about who we are by who we like. We follow the desires of our heart, and that's it. It is only so-called 'experts' in these fields that postulate all manner of attributes about us and use them to categorize and compartmentalize us, and ultimately divide us. This is the past and present of sexual orientation.
Today we must choose our future.
THE FUTURE OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION The future of sexual orientation is what it has been all along, without the false labels we have associated with it.
Sexual orientation, like the gender identity on which it is based, is a continuous spectrum that ranges from male to female, including all points in between. In the future, we will simply accept it as such, without dividing it up and classifying everyone under a particular label. There will not be stigmas attached to certain attractions; individual orientations will be met with understanding and acceptance.
In the future, we will choose sexual partners that complete us - bring a sense of wholeness - whether in the moment or for life, not ones acceptable to restrictive norms of society. Like now, the majority of people will be predominantly attracted to their opposite gender, but with greater openness. Rather than seeing ourselves as limited in our sexual orientation, we will see it as an opportunity to explore and expand ourselves. Through it, we'll learn more about what it means to be male or female, and to love both. Sexual orientation will be fluid and natural -- as it was meant to be.
Sexual orientation in the future will not be heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality. It will simply be sexuality, capable of loving everyone and everything. Everyone will have the same sexual orientation -- omnisexuality. That is the sexual orientation of your duo-sex soul. True sexual orientation simply accepts who you are.
Sexual Orientation Solutions There are several concrete steps we can take to ensure this sexual orientation future.
The first is to increase our understanding of what sex and gender mean. For this, two lessons are essential:These, together with this lesson on Sexual Orientation, will foster greater openness, acceptance, and fluidity regarding all gender and orientation issues.
The second step is to adopt a language that reflects the truth about sexual orientation as taught above. This means:- using language that describes orientation as a continuum, not split categories;
- replacing language that defines orientation with that referring to acts & desires;
- replacing gender-relative terms with direct male/female ones;
- eliminating use of 'homosexual' due to its negative connotations.
It is not possible to define proper terms for sexual orientation because sexual orientation itself is a false term. It is impossible to divide a continuous spectrum into specific orientations. This is shown by Kinsey's findings that few people fit into the sexual orientation categories that we assign. In a continuum, there is no place to draw dividing lines between different orientations. Is it lifestyle, habitual activity, occasional activity, one-time activity, frequent desire, occasional desire, one-time desire, single fantasy, erotic response to stimuli, dream episode, or some other even subtler sign? And what does one-time desire or activity mean in the face of an opposite life-long orientation? The term becomes meaningless, so why use it?
The best language that describes orientation as a continuum, not split categories, is the one most used throughout history until the 19th century -- sexuality. Not heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality; just sexuality. That is our orientation as human beings.
From there, we can define specific acts simply as 'male love' (male-male sexual activity), 'female love' (female-female sexual activity), or just plain 'love' or 'sex' (male-female sexual activity). Gender-relative terms like heterosexual and homosexual are less accurate because we desire a particular sex for its traits, not because it's the same as or opposite to us.
If we want to indicate our preferences at the moment (and it is only for the moment because it can change; it is not a set life-long orientation), we can say simply, "I like men", "I like women", or "I like both".
While this may sound simplistic and 'unprofessional', it is the truth of our sexuality. We must undo the over-analyzing that has sliced up sexuality and divided us against ourselves. We must return to sexual simplicity and wholeness.
A third step that will contribute to the future of sacred sex is scientific research that supports the understanding of sexual orientation taught in this lesson. Below are proposed areas and methods of research that may accomplish this. Other suggestions are included to promote a better general understanding:- Do meta-studies testing all known factors influencing sexual orientation; results that account for most cases of homosexuality will confirm that it is influenced by multiple factors, not a single cause, and also may show patterns & correlations between factors that help science better understand it.
- Conduct research to determine whether sexual orientation hetero/homo based or male/female based.
- Design research to test whether the 'default' sexual orientation is male (based on the fact that default gender is female); i.e. test whether some influence typically switches orientation in men, and which when absent, leaves default male attraction in both men and women.
- Study why females with alternative gender identities are typically attracted to women, but men with alternative identities may be attracted to men, women, both, or neither.
- Distinguish between masculine & effeminate gay men and butch & femme lesbians in studies -- research that yields no results for gays in general may give some for sub-groups.
- Test the Westermarck Effect (close childhood relations to a particular gender de-sexualizes that gender for the child) -- if there is one doting parent, sexual attraction toward that parent's gender may lessen; if there is an absent or distant parent, attraction toward that parent's gender may strengthen.
The above solutions will eliminate the divisions created by our current view of sexual orientation and promote social unity. They remove the need to 'fix' what isn't broken and instead, teach us to accept the natural variety of life as normal. They replace social prejudice with harmony.
Most important though, they let us see, appreciate, and honor life as it truly is - as a single, yet infinitely varied, continuum - without artificial divisions. They awaken us to the rainbow spectrum of life.
SACRED ORIENTATION If you could realize God, or whatever your spiritual ideal, regardless of your sexual orientation, could society justify it as immoral?
Clearly, the answer is 'no', and that is how sacred sex resolves this issue. Sacred sex gives practical techniques to accomplish exactly that. Not only does the experiential result supersede moral judgment, but also the techniques themselves work outside the realm of moral values, independent of them.
Sacred sex does not rely on belief, faith, or other factors that we may relate to moral virtue. It uses physical techniques - including muscle action, conscious breathing, massage, and others - that have their effect regardless of convictions. Like brushing your teeth, results come regardless of any claim as to its lack of virtue.
Sacred sex is mechanical in that it follows natural laws of physical cause and effect. Anyone who does the practice, regardless of sexual orientation or any other factor, enjoys the effect. (Physical impediments such as health conditions or injuries may reduce or block results, but these are separate from moral issues.)
There are not even special practices or lessons to learn for alternative orientations. Sexual partners of any gender can do all sacred sex techniques as taught in the Lesson Forum. The results will be the same.
If anything, male same-sex relations benefit in one way over male-female relations. This is due to the role of the prostate for men in sacred sex. The prostate is key to the experience of non-ejaculatory orgasm for men, which is basic to sacred sex. Due to its position in front of the rectal wall, it is massaged during anal intercourse. Thus gay men may enjoy heightened effects when using this in sacred sex.
(Lesbian partners can use a double-headed phallus (dildo) if they wish or need to strengthen the effect of sacred sexercise as taught in Lesson 4.)
Sexual orientation is one of our most basic identifications. It is natural that we look for moral values in it. When we see sex from a physical perspective only, it is not surprising that society has attributed our current morals to it. We think of sex as an act of union, and physically we see that man plus woman equals wholeness. We accept this as normative union.
But we've seen above that sex also has personal and social dimensions that contribute to our sense of wholeness. There are even biological factors that influence what satisfies our yearning for wholeness. Any or all of these may change the physical value of our sexual orientation as we seek to create that wholeness in our lives. These personal, social, and biological factors are no less important - and certainly no less moral - than physical ones. In fact, morality should teach us to look beyond the physical to higher values in life. Sexual orientation acceptance should be a moral demand.
Beyond even this though, sacred sex adds a spiritual dimension to the physical act. In sacred sex, you don't join in sexual union just for physical completeness, or even personal or social wholeness, but mainly for spiritual Unity. This Unity transcends all divisions, all labels, all orientations. It is the essential Unity of creation and it reconciles all.
Whatever physical orientation takes you there is a sacred orientation for you.
BEYOND SEXUAL ORIENTATION So far, we've seen that sexual orientation is a false construct because it is a spectrum that can't be divided. That should inspire society to move beyond sexual orientation as a label.
But sacred sex takes you beyond sexual orientation in a different way -- experientially.
In sacred sex, you merge in union with all creation. That union is sexual -- your inner male & female essence unite in Sacred Union. Male and female essence underlies everything in creation. When they merge in union within you, you enter into an all-embracing Union with creation. That makes you pansexual -- you enjoy sexual union with everyone & everything. You are neither heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even human-sexual. You are omnisexual. You are a universal sexual soul that has awakened to your true sexual essence.
As a duo-sex soul, the entire issue of sexual orientation is moot -- you are male & female both. There is no one gender to orient.
You also have no sexual orientation because orientation implies division -- one thing attracted to another. In Sacred Union you are one with creation; there is nothing to be oriented to. You are literally beyond sexual orientation.
This shows that sexual orientation labels are ultimately pointless. They also show that moral judgments against alternative orientations are baseless.
Sacred sex takes you beyond the confines of limited gender identity and sexual orientation. In this light, alternative orientations, which challenge our conventional divisions of gender, actually aid in this purpose. They compel us to look beyond the physical body for answers to sexual questions. In doing so, we must acknowledge the presence of deeper values, including the soul, that transcend bodily gender.
In this way, those with alternative sexual orientations help all of society rise above sexual orientation altogether.
As human beings, we are not defined by sexual orientation. We are not heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. We are simply sexual, with our own particular desires and attractions.
We are duo-sex souls swinging back & forth through various sexual bodies, until we awaken to sexual wholeness -- beyond orientation.
Copyright 2007, Society for Sacred Sexuality - all rights reserved.
_________________
Sexual union is a mirror of Spiritual Union, and a gateway to direct experience of it. |
|
Register
Log in
FAQ
Search
MemberList
UserGroups
My Profile
My Messages
Search this Page: Press Ctrl+f to find any term or phrase on this page (Cmd+f for Mac).
