That’s a remarkable jump, never mind the catch.

So here’s a question:

If men being attracted to men, or women being attracted to women, is “normal” and distinct from heterosexuality, then why does at least one of the partners in a gay pair have pronounced characteristics of the opposite sex? (one of the men is the “girl”, one of the women is the “boy”, etc.)

I believe the answer is that it’s not “normal” or distinct.

I don’t think there’s any such thing as “gay” attraction. There is only “sexual attraction” between men and women, and this simply gets confused, complicated, distorted, or maligned (depending on your perspective) by the grayscale nature of sexual physiology, culture, and identity.

If being gay were an actual distinct option from heterosexual desire rather than a blending or distortion of it, we would see many couples where both partners were highly typical of their own gender, i.e. men with few feminine characteristics and women with few masculine characteristics.

But we don’t.

To put this another way, why are “bottom” (girl) lesbians attracted to “top” (boy) lesbians? The answer is that it’s natural for bottoms to be attracted to tops, and for girls to be attracted to boys. And that’s the point: it’s no different in gay couples. Their attraction patterns are essentially mimicking the natural pattern seen in “regular” couples.

In short, gay couples aren’t being “gay”; they’re being heterosexual in a non-standard way.

And there’s good reason for this. A number of studies have shown that on tests in which results are predictable based on gender, homosexual subjects score more like the opposite gender. In addition, brain studies have shown that gender is significantly physiological.

So is it really unexpected to have a man who appears to science much like a woman be attracted to a man? Or to have a woman who appears to science much like a man be attracted to women? No. In fact, it would be more interesting if that weren’t the case.

This doesn’t have any bearing, of course, on how public policy should be shaped. I remain in support of gay rights as I always have been. But as always I think it’s harmful to promote a false concept–in this case the notion of a second “type” of sexuality where men like men and women like women.

There isn’t any such distinct type. There’s just boys liking girls, and girls liking boys. With homosexuality you simply have people who embody (more than usual) a blend of both genders, and this results in the behavior we see. ::

Notes

[1] I use the words “normal” and “regular” in this essay. I don’t technically believe in such things with respect to humans; I use them because are quickly understood by readers.

[2] I use “natural” as “typical” here, as anything that occurs in nature can arguably be called natural.

Links

[ Gay Men Share Womens' Talents for Map Reading | telegraph.co.uk ]
[ Symmetry of Homosexual Brain Resembles That of Opposite Sex | sciencedaily.com ]

Some quality footage of a hummingbird taking food from a human.

Ruby-throated Hummingbird Eating From My Hand (Part One) from Russ Thompson on Vimeo.

This is video from Bolivia, where massive salt flats serve as the world’s largest natural mirror.

Watch through the end; that’s when it gets really silly.

My question: where is the cameraman standing? Why does he think whatever he’s standing on is immune?

The Misool Eco-resort.

Within two years–we’ll be going. Assuming Indonesia isn’t on fire or something. ::

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Northwestern University. On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully. He got down on one knee, inspected the elephants foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it.

As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

Probably wasn’t the same elephant.

(thanks to Jason for the story)

Image from cracked.com

That’s not Photoshop. That’s a real animal. Yeah, I didn’t believe it either. Here’s the video:

(thanks to Jason Powell for the link)

The best, up-to-date map of Gustav’s movements.

[ Animated Map of Gustav | weather.com ]