Thinking Homosexuality

Astrocyte. Have you ever asked yourself why you think about homosexuality this much? How much time have you spent thinking about homosexuality? And writing about it? And talking about it?

It's OK. Closets are for clothes. You can come out. It's safe.

Mind, Matter, right, left, up, down, good, evil, sun, moon, day, night, life, death, male and female.

That's a very rigid outlook on everything. What about the other 358 degrees between left and right or up and down? Is everyone pure good or pure evil? Is there just one moon and one sun? Are there only suns and moons in the universe and no other types of "things" floating through the vast universe? Is it either day or night? Won't Twilight and Dawn feel a bit left out? When is something alive? When is something dead? Male or female? Hermaphrodites? Nor is there just straight or just homosexual. There are a hundred variants in-between...

Nothing in life is just white or just black. Not even white and black.

...
Have you considered that homosexuality isn't just about sex? Straight folks don't just get married to have coitus. They have relationships. Love. Share. Talk. Sit in silence. Cuddle. Hold hands. Be spiritual. And so much more. They enjoy companionship. Homosexual relationships are no different. It's as much physical, emotional and spiritual as any heterosexual relationship. Homosexuality is natural. You'll see it throughout history in all societies. Some societies are/were just more accepting than others. Or in "metaphysical" terms... enlightened.

a reply to: Gemwolf

I don't think he has ever seen Will and Grace.

a reply to: MamaJ

Yeah, were bisexual.

I agree, and all it takes is a little self-awareness: you can be inclined sexually to either sex depending on what you "let through".

This is why the "homosexuality is innate" theory is absurd. It is held in place by psychological-neurological dynamics, but these dynamics are subject to a world of interpersonal relations and the knowledge and feeling which flows through them. It is "opening up" to a new source of input, and letting go of your fear of what you don't want to feel (homosexual feelings) that permits neuroplastic changes.

It's stress and anxiety in the background of a patriarchal and egotistical culture, so no wonder that the emotionally vulnerable Human being becomes attracted to a negative self-image and sexual orientation associated with femininity, weakness and "unmanliness". The issue is an anxiety issue, and if you understand what anxiety can do for sexuality - particularly that which has been deemed "taboo", it can excite and make more energetic a thing that is being consciously denied.

It's basically an emergent phenomenon with a lot of unconscious baggage based in real experiences with parents and other important others.

We think our brains are something other than intensely sophisticated recorders that seek to make experiences "more coherent" for us. But they aren't perfect: theyre sensitive to being uncared for, and can become overly "needy" to be known by Others - such as a father (for a boy) or a mother (for a girl). It's all an issue of unconscious identifications with archetypal "others", where a quality of the self (male) becomes linked and imprinted towards an existent exemplar (father). The father, if masculinistic and intolerant of his own feelings, may be inclined to see in his sons tender, feminine, forms of play (say, with dolls) his own hatred for such things, and so get angry at the son and call him a "fagg".

The word "fagg" is mean-spirited and deeply hurtful to a boy with an unconscious loyalty to a father and what he does. So now a "split" occurs. The boy begins to relate to his own desires in a "tense" way. The tension derives from an unconscious absorption of the fathers own experience, and so, at whatever age he currently is, this sort of experience will repeat itself again and again, both in real life and in his own imagining, until puberty hits, enough experiences of excitement have been known, that he begins to "own" these feelings, i.e become gay.

A compassionate person will understand what sort of depression and anxiety this situation has been for them, and so will easily understand the desire to "let go" and just accept. The acceptance is exhilarating, and a culture growing more and more tolerant allows gays to feel more accepted and more normal.

This is all good to me. But my own personal view, based as it is, I believe, on a very deep relation to experienced reality, makes me believe that this is a generational phenomenon resulting from the patriachalism of the last 300 years in particular.

The explosion of homosexuality in the last few decades speaks to the "fight" that seems to be existing - as is most clear in this present presidential election, between 'male values' and 'female values'. One, you could say, derives from fear and strength, and the other, care and nurturing. And not surprisingly, fear - trump - could win the day, and take control of the next 4 years of Human reality.

When Humans are relaxed in their brains and bodies, they are able to perceive more. Watch a cat who has kittens. Watch how its changed hormonal state in pregnancy and birth (increased oxytocin) compels it to perceive and sense more. It licks things it wouldn't ordinarily lick, and spends a great deal of its time watching its kittens.

We live in a stressed and traumatized world, so its not surprising that my view is being as strongly opposed as it is. Even as I express subtly and nuance, what if the mind reading my words isn't used (neuro-psychologically) to such conceptual complexity? What if they don't realize or appreciate how unwanted information distorts perception - taht is, makes perception "active", so that while they read my words its their own thinking and responding they hear, and not the attuned reconstruction of the Other persons intent.

Reading is a soft process that requires a soft and relaxed body-mind.

Yet many people don't care! Apathy is a strong, strong force!

a reply to: Astrocyte

Is your plan to make each post so unbearably long that we will just stop reading them... I mean I did halfway through your first one... I mean everybody who is trying to.

a reply to: Gemwolf

Astrocyte. Have you ever asked yourself why you think about homosexuality this much? How much time have you spent thinking about homosexuality? And writing about it? And talking about it? It's OK. Closets are for clothes. You can come out. It's safe.

It's feeling, Gemwolf.

My feelings are different from yours.

If your feelings are "reduced" to a light-hearted sense of feeling and seeing everything, thats you, and in you, and an expression of your history on this planet.

My feelings lead me elsewhere. Thus, it is not "I'm secretly gay", as you imagine, but the spiritual sense that reality "asks questions" and Humans either attune to the question, as I try to do, or dissociate from it, as you try to do.

As to the nature of reality and the "two" things I pay attention to. The most essential difference I think is that I am Self, and you are a Self. But you are a body to me that is not me, and so, not my phenomenology. My phenomenology records my experience and existence in this world, and so, is a "different ecology of feeling relations".

I think self and other is the 'template' for reality.

a reply to: AshFan

I watch that show and like that show.

Yes, I too have "hypocrisy" in me. But again, if something is funny - albeit, sort of antagonistic to my values - there are still other redeeming elements of the show that tilts the balance in the way of fun.

That is, the show and many shows like it (Modern Family) have and project good-values.

I am able to relax myself to the things which bother me. I can dissociate, consciously.

Oh there it is... "spiritual"

Im not biased, but we wouldn't exist if everyone were to be homosexual,

so I'll go out on a limb and classify it as incoherent.

a reply to: ssenerawa

I think with the overpopulation on the earth, we need to seriously PROMOTE homosexuality

a reply to: AshFan

Or self-restraint.

Do you realize our food is packed with steroids that promote hyper-sexuality?

Maybe if people ate healthier, they would feel less of a libido?

And also, be completely happy with that.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Hey, not eating solves the same issue.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I trust that the world we live in is completely dominated by a masculinism

What makes you think this?

But my own personal view, based as it is, I believe, on a very deep relation to experienced reality, makes me believe that this is a generational phenomenon resulting from the patriachalism of the last 300 years in particular.

History says otherwise.

The explosion of homosexuality in the last few decades speaks to the "fight" that seems to be existing - as is most clear in this present presidential election, between 'male values' and 'female values'. One, you could say, derives from fear and strength, and the other, care and nurturing. And not surprisingly, fear

I highlighted ( bold) fear the ONLY word that is of value in the above paragraph. Fear took an even stronger hold on human beings in the Era of Constantine in my opinion.

a reply to: Astrocyte

I do have my share of mind travelling more than you do as I can see the abstract behind this topic f.e. where you cling to the physical.
I am a woman, like you btw. And I totally agree the strong gender is weaker, but in our modern days, just like in the ancient times, the fact they need more, is just something one has to accept.
Nothing makes a guy work harder than the spark of appreciation in someone elses eyes, all is a bell curve of course, but in general the "locus of a mens selfesteem is mostly exterior".
Imagine the roles would have been different the ladies would have gone out to make war, hunt and all those group activities while the males would have to watch over the "nest"... That would be a total mess the bitches would have been ripping eachothers hair out before the first enemy would have been in sight and the poor babies at home would have drowned in their depressions, all alone in the big empty castle.
Don't reduce it to hormones that's not true and not fair, you and me got testosterone too, you know? It's the root of the cause if you will, but not the reason.

I meat guys more caring and warm and submissive than some women I meat which were pretty dominant and aggressive and egoistic.
If you feel objectified you allow that to happen.
So you're not homosexual, that's okay, nobody is 100%, but I hate to tell you, nobody is 0% either. And just because sex seems to have negative implications to you, it doesn't have that for everybody.
you pull the aggressive/objectified card and with that you basically admit, you've been violated and victimised, but people with different experiences than yours see sexual interactions not like you do at all.
Not that serious, just two people enjoying eachother and bonding for the however long period they found eachother.
Social glue. Like with Bonobos. Elephants have even bigger brains, btw, so your 1400cc argument is mute.

a reply to: Peeple

What she said.

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: Gemwolf

I don't think he has ever seen Will and Grace.

I have to agree. Not that I think Will and Grace is by any means a perfect reflection of any homosexual person, environment or relationship. But I agree that - based on your last couple of posts - you, Astrocyte, clearly have preconceived notions about homosexuality and/or homosexual people. I can guarantee you, you are wrong.

This image, for example, will probably dispel about a dozen "myths" (for lack of better word) you have about homosexuality:

originally posted by: Astrocyte

It's feeling, Gemwolf.

My feelings are different from yours.

If your feelings are "reduced" to a light-hearted sense of feeling and seeing everything, thats you, and in you, and an expression of your history on this planet.
...

Trying to sound very mystical but not really saying much or addressing the points made.

But let's take this: My feelings are different from yours...thats you

Why can't you take those exact words and apply them to your attitude towards homosexual people?

It's their feelings. It's different than yours. Let them be. You don't have to think about homosexuals and what they do in their bedrooms.
Their feelings are different from yours...thats who they are

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: Peeple

What she said.

You're cracking me up!!!!!

Have a on me!

a reply to: Astrocyte

Maybe if people ate healthier, they would feel less of a libido

You don't really believe this do you?

a reply to: Astrocyte

I chose a passage randomly.

If tolerance is tolerance, should it not be a tolerance with a bit of sophistication? If homosexuality legitimately compels reflective thinkers to "honor" physical realities insinuations: in the creative capacity emerging in the coming together of opposites (X and Y chromosomes), is it not possible for our Humanhood to maintain its priority in our relations, leaving our private metaphysical views to have power in our own personal spiritual lives?

And came to the conclusion that like a lot of people on the interwebs, you just like to write a lot of shiz. No meaning, lots of words to try to confuse, no sense.

In other words RUBBISH.

Have a nice day.

a reply to: AshFan


Yeh who cares what consenting adults do in private,a fixation on how people choose to sexualy express themselves, tells more about the person enquiring than the people in the consenting situation.

a reply to: anonentity

I agree