Yes. I'm using the word fear to encompass an unwillingness to succumb to societal pressures and repercussions. A fear of being disowned by a father or other family members, for example. A fear of losing friends and other relationships, maybe even a career path, etc. Call it what you will. Fear, unpleasantness, or just not wanting to rock the boat. The point was that very few people were willing to come out in the late 70's early 80's,which is why I suspect I had no gay friends when really, now that I think about it, couldn't have been true.

I agree with Lestat here and it was similar when I was at school. I didn't know a single person who was gay at school and I've since found out that 2 of my former classmates were. It would probably have brought a lot of unpleasant consequences for them if they were outed back then.

Yep, I'm around age 40 and my experience matches Lestat's. It's excellent that that society has improved morally to the point that people no longer suffer such social stigma from their sexuality.

Do we know that? Or is it just assumed?

Are all of those issues always about fear? That is, do you think that the entirety of human social interaction is about fear of being in an out group (or be otherwise socially unacceptable)? I think that characterization goes too far, even with the casual definition of fear. (It reminds me of various types of silly arguments that people make, such as everything we do can be tied to a fear of dying.)

That's an... interesting... interpretation of what tame_deuces said. Out of curiosity, when you do that sort of thing are you genuinely misreading based on some preconceived ideas you hold, or is it a diversionary tactic to get the other person sidetracked on addressing nonsensical issues? Feel free to PM if you don't want to answer ITT.

My position is that "fear" isn't the only explanation for people's behaviors. My position is not that "fear" does not explain any of people's behaviors. In order for Lestat's position to be correct ("I don't know anyone from my childhood who was gay because they were all too afraid to come out") we must have "fear" as the primary driver for virtually all behaviors. I'm saying that the sociology is far more complex than that.

I don't disagree that "fear" can be understood in the way that t_d is saying. But by itself, that doesn't really advance Lestat's position unless he's taking it in the extreme form like when people make arguments that we do everything out of fear of death (or something like that).

First, I do happen to think that people in general are highly motivated by fear. It's my (very informal) hypothesis that almost every action we take stems from an attempt to either avoid some semblance of pain, or a desire to gain some semblance of pleasure. But that's off topic and a bit too involved for this discussion.

I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were talking about a heterosexual married couple who swings, or a guy who derives arousal from being dominated by women, etc. There are all kinds of sexual kinks and pleasures that people seek (and would no doubt be considered sinful by biblical standards). In many of these cases, conforming to social norms (and not fear), might indeed be the main reason for discretion and not going public with their lifestyles. However, sexual orientation is an identity. It's who you are. It's not a sexual preference, activity, or fetish, that one either chooses to act or not act upon.

So unless your intention is to go back a couple of decades and use the oh so unsophisticated argument that being gay is a "choice", I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Homosexuality is not merely a lifestyle choice. And if you live in an intolerant society that doesn't accept you for who you are, and coming out has the very real consequence of being shun by family members, social groups, and even career opportunities, then fear by any definition, is a very reasonable word to use.

Well, no... that just means that your beliefs on the subject are axiomatic.

Be very careful with this because "identity" is socially constructed, but you're also trying to say that "sexual orientation" is (basically) a biological artifact. I was very careful to try to differentiate between the two in my first post. The bolded and the underlined in my post below correspond to the bolded and the underlined statements in your post.

I'm saying that the bolded and underlined are different, but you're trying to say they're the same. I think that's a significant error.

Wait what? Are you saying that Homosexuality is "who you are", but , I dunno, a foot fetish isnt?

In what way is homosexuality not a sexual preference, activity or fetish that one either chooses to act upon or not? Im not seeing the distinction here, but maybe Im just slow.

( note, subsititute heterosexuality in, and I would say the same )

I don't think this is true, because I can certainly be persuaded to change my view. My current view was shaped by things I've read and learned about psychology and what makes people tick. It can be changed back just as easily.

I can agree that there may be a distinction between identity as it relates to social construct, and identity as in, who you are. My point is that sexual orientation is not a choice, whereas other sexual preferences might be. While a gay person might be able to refrain from homosexual activity, they will still be homosexual. To that end, the bible is once again, surprise - surprise, behind the times. Until recently, it may have made sense to think of homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, but it no longer does.

I'm still not entirely sure what you're disputing. At first, I thought it was my use of the word fear. Then it was your assumption that I was not making a distinction between innate identity and identity as it relates to social construct. I trust that I've resolved the latter. So do you still have a problem with my use of the word fear as a main cause for why gay people didn't come out decades ago?

A fetish is sexual interest in an object or situation. Mostly they are assumed to be learned behavior: A caveman does not develop a fixation towards stockings and high heels.

Foot fetish is a layman's term. In psychology overaching sexual interest towards a specific part of the body is called partialism, and is not considered a fetish.

No, fear is a distinct emotional response and does not play directly in most of human behavior. We will often take action to avoid fear however, and this probably affects us far more. To understand the difference assume an analogy with pain. We can feel pain, but mostly pain influences our lives in regards to how we avoid it.

What I intended to communicate however was that "fear" was here likely being used as synonomous with unwillingness not to conform.

Conformity is an enormously powerful predictor for human behavior. One of the most powerful we have. Classical experiments such as those of Asch illustrate this perfectly.

So why cant you learn heterosexuality in the same way that you learn a fetish? Is it just that we dont know enough about how fetishes arise?

Well, I'm one of the controversial ones in regards to this. I think both can be true.

I think for some heterosexuality is purely in the genetical makeup, homosexuality is not something they can learn. But I think that for some of those who are disposed towards bisexuality gender preference can be learned and/or vary throughout their lives.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak authoritatively on this subject. But it's my understanding that homosexuality has been shown to be genetic. While it's entirely possible that genetics also play a role in someone being more prone to fetishes, a fetish in itself is not innate. You are not born having a foot fetish whereas, you are born with a particular orientation towards men or women. It's not just humans by the way. Homosexuality has been discovered to be prevalent in other species too.

Interesting... So assuming you're a heterosexual male, you think you could learn to love and be intimate with another man? I couldn't. I don't like to admit this, but to be honest, I still cringe a little when I see two men holding hands, kissing, or otherwise showing affection towards each other. It's very unnatural TO ME. But that doesn't mean it's not perfectly natural for them, or that I have any right to pronounce judgment. I recognize their right to seek happiness. Whatever lingering traces of homophobia I still possess are my problem and not theirs. I'm working on it.

What is your position exactly? That homosexuality is entirely socially constructed? Largely socially constructed? Somewhat?

When you think about how much internal suffering many homosexuals go through regarding their sexuality, it would be pretty hard to take the position that sexual preference is largely influenced through the social environment.

Even if it's true that homosexuality is to a small degree positively influenced by the social environment, what is that supposed to change? It still means that overall it wasn't a choice right?

These are phrased very weirdly, so just a point of clarity: sexual identity is about ones perception of one's self. While that identity is probably shaped by social influences at least to some degree, whether one is out or not doesn't change whether one has a sexual identity. In particular, closeted people from his childhood likely had a meaningful sexual identity in addition to a sexual orientation (with the two obviously closely linked). I don't know what you mean by "inherent" but it is entirely possible to not come out at all, and to "simply be" in the sense of having a robust sexual identity that only you or perhaps a small group of people are aware of. The act of coming out, changes how other people perceive you and might allow you to express your preferences socially, but doesn't need to change your sexual identity.

I don't think this is what he's saying. His point seems to be that identity is a social construct. Not homosexuality.

Or developmental. It seems it can get hardwired early in brain development due to chance or environmental factors.

There are also some weird things where whether one calls it environmental or not is a bit of a definition issue, such as changes to a mother's immune response from having boys possibly leading to subsequent brothers being more likely to be gay due to in utereo changes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenata...al_birth_order

I believe we are going to find out it is entirely epigenetic.

Sexual identity is socially constructed.

Yes, I agree and sexual desire is not. Do you agree?

Well, I just meant , substitute heterosexuality for homosexuality in the sentence

"In what way is homosexuality not a sexual preference, activity or fetish that one either chooses to act upon or not"

It seems to me that homosexuality( and heterosexuality) is a sexual preference. As in, you prefer something over something else. And you seemed to be saying that it wasnt a preference, and I was just trying to understand the distinction you were making.