Acceptance of homosexuality on the rise in USA

[Ancalagon]

And seemingly has raised above 50%. This is great news. Interestingly, the opinion shift is being lead by men.

Point #3 really amused me :lol:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05blow.html?src=me&ref=general

Gay? Whatever, Dude
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: June 4, 2010


Last week, while many of us were distracted by the oil belching forth from the gulf floor and the president’s ham-handed attempts to demonstrate that he was sufficiently engaged and enraged, Gallup released a stunning, and little noticed, report on Americans’ evolving views of homosexuality. Allow me to enlighten:
Earl Wilson/The New York Times



1. For the first time, the percentage of Americans who perceive “gay and lesbian relations” as morally acceptable has crossed the 50 percent mark. (You have to love the fact that they still use the word “relations.” So quaint.)

2. Also for the first time, the percentage of men who hold that view is greater than the percentage of women who do.

3. This new alignment is being led by a dramatic change in attitudes among younger men, but older men’s perceptions also have eclipsed older women’s. While women’s views have stayed about the same over the past four years, the percentage of men ages 18 to 49 who perceived these “relations” as morally acceptable rose by 48 percent, and among men over 50, it rose by 26 percent.

I warned you: stunning.

There is no way to know for sure what’s driving such a radical change in men’s views on this issue because Gallup didn’t ask, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t speculate. To help me do so, I called Dr. Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook and the author or editor of more than 20 books on men and masculinity, and Professor Ritch Savin-Williams, the chairman of human development at Cornell University and the author of seven books, most of which deal with adolescent development and same-sex attraction.

Here are three theories:

1. The contact hypothesis. As more men openly acknowledge that they are gay, it becomes harder for men who are not gay to discriminate against them. And as that group of openly gay men becomes more varied — including athletes, celebrities and soldiers — many of the old, derisive stereotypes lose their purchase. To that point, a Gallup poll released last May found that people who said they personally knew someone who was gay or lesbian were more likely to be accepting of gay men and lesbians in general and more supportive of their issues.

2. Men may be becoming more egalitarian in general. As Dr. Kimmel put it: “Men have gotten increasingly comfortable with the presence of, and relative equality of, ‘the other,’ and we’re becoming more accustomed to it. And most men are finding that it has not been a disaster.” The expanding sense of acceptance likely began with the feminist and civil rights movements and is now being extended to the gay rights movement. Dr. Kimmel continued, “The dire predictions for diversity have not only not come true, but, in fact, they’ve been proved the other way.”

3. Virulent homophobes are increasingly being exposed for engaging in homosexuality. Think Ted Haggard, the once fervent antigay preacher and former leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, and his male prostitute. (This week, Haggard announced that he was starting a new “inclusive” church open to “gay, straight, bi, tall, short,” but no same-sex marriages. Not “God’s ideal.” Sorry.) Or George Rekers, the founding member of the Family Research Council, and his rent boy/luggage handler. Last week, the council claimed that repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” would lead to an explosion of “homosexual assaults” in which sleeping soldiers would be the victims of fondling and fellatio by gay predators. In fact, there is a growing body of research that supports the notion that homophobia in some men could be a reaction to their own homosexual impulses. Many heterosexual men see this, and they don’t want to be associated with it. It’s like being antigay is becoming the old gay. Not cool.

These sound plausible, but why aren’t women seeing the same enlightening effects as men? Professor Savin-Williams suggests that there may be a “ceiling effect,” that men are simply catching up to women, and there may be a level at which views top out. Interesting.

All of this is great news, but it doesn’t mean that all measures relating to acceptance of gay men and lesbians have changed to the same degree. People’s comfort with the “gay and lesbian” part of the equation is still greater than their comfort with the “relations” part — the idea versus the act — particularly when it comes to pairings of men.

As Professor Savin-Williams told me, there is still a higher aversive reaction to same-sex sexuality among men than among women.

For instance, in a February New York Times/CBS News poll, half of the respondents were asked if they favored letting “gay men and lesbians” serve in the military (which is still more than 85 percent male), and the other half were asked if they favored letting “homosexuals” serve. Those who got the “homosexual” question favored it at a rate that was 11 percentage points lower than those who got the “gay men and lesbians” question.

Part of the difference may be that “homosexual” is a bigger, more clinical word freighted with a lot of historical baggage. But just as likely is that the inclusion of the root word “sex” still raises an aversive response to the idea of, how shall I say, the architectural issues between two men. It is the point at which support for basic human rights cleaves from endorsement of behavior.

As for the aversion among men, it may be softening a bit. Professor Savin-Williams says that his current research reveals that the fastest-growing group along the sexuality continuum are men who self-identify as “mostly straight” as opposed to labels like “straight,” “gay” or “bisexual.” They acknowledge some level of attraction to other men even as they say that they probably wouldn’t act on it, but ... the right guy, the right day, a few beers and who knows. As the professor points out, you would never have heard that in years past.

All together now: stunning.

(I now return you to Day 46 of the oil spill where they finally may be making some progress.)

[Ergeheilalt]

But he forgot to mention the gay mafia.

They're out there...

:gangster:

[Cat's Paw Nebula]

But he forgot to mention the gay mafia.

They're out there...

:gangster:
... and next time it won't just be your living room they rearrange?

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

It's because society has neutered an entire generation of males into thinking that being straight and male is unacceptable and boorish, while being feminine and gay is to be celebrated.

[Hatter]

It's because society has neutered an entire generation of males into thinking that being straight and male is unacceptable and boorish, while being feminine and gay is to be celebrated.

uh

[Trainz]

It's because society has neutered an entire generation of males into thinking that being straight and male is unacceptable and boorish, while being feminine and gay is to be celebrated.

Wow.

WOW.

Not from where *I* sit buddy. The society I live in celebrates virility. Virility doesn't equal boorish stupidity BTW.

Also, while accepting homosexuality, the society I live in enjoys making fun of homosexuals... being effeminate DOESN'T elevate you.

[DarwinOfMind]

Wow.

WOW.

Not from where *I* sit buddy. The society I live in celebrates virility. Virility doesn't equal boorish stupidity BTW.

Also, while accepting homosexuality, the society I live in enjoys making fun of homosexuals... being effeminate DOESN'T elevate you.
That's the society I live in too,

I really need to move to Scuts society

maybe we can make a trade.

[Name Lips]

Maybe we're becoming more accepting of homosexuality because we're starting to see gays as less effeminiate as we meet more of them who break the steriotype. That is to say, we're not getting less masculine as a society, we're just seeing homosexuals as more manly and virile.

[Northcott]

Wow.

WOW.

Not from where *I* sit buddy. The society I live in celebrates virility. Virility doesn't equal boorish stupidity BTW.

Also, while accepting homosexuality, the society I live in enjoys making fun of homosexuals... being effeminate DOESN'T elevate you.

Sure, society celebrates virility. That's why there are so many emaciated male models with shaved bodies, effeminate features, and an utter lack of facial hair. They're a celebration of masculinity. Not androgynous at all.

That's why the medical industry, media, and politicians villainize testosterone; exaggerating or outright fabricating the issues involved with it, while glossing over the mounting evidence of health issues caused by excessive use of estrogens or substances with estrogenic properties in our society.

Personally, I think the reason men are proving to be more accepting of homosexuals in society is... lesbians. That's right, lesbians. Two hot lesbians will do more for the gay rights movement in the minds of some men than a thousand well-framed arguments about equality, justice, decency, or common sense. Flip the switch on that ol' lizard brain, then tell your favourite knuckle-dragger that THE BAD MAN IS TRYING TO TAKE THE LESBIANS AWAY!!!1! Watch the chimp dance. Sweet God, I'm surprised we haven't had an uprising of people demanding more rights for the pretty, pretty lesbians...

Which we probably would have, if heterosexual women didn't hate them so damned much. Want to see hate in its purest form? Watch her eyes when she catches her husband checking out lesbian porn. Doesn't matter what colour they were... her eyes are now green. Bloodshed may or may not be involved.

This may be tied into why acceptance of homosexuality seems to have stalled among women. I really don't think it has anything to do with a 'ceiling'.

Remember, folks: Lesbian porn can change the world, if you believe.

[Northcott]

Maybe we're becoming more accepting of homosexuality because we're starting to see gays as less effeminiate as we meet more of them who break the steriotype. That is to say, we're not getting less masculine as a society, we're just seeing homosexuals as more manly and virile.

No, we're getting less masculine as a society. That one's pretty hard to doubt. If you were born around 1970 or after, you probably have only about 75% of the testosterone level of your father. A full quarter reduction. Considering that a fairly small shift downward can affect bone growth, fat retention, muscle growth, make you moodier, make you more prone to clinical depression, and more susceptible to cancer, I'd say that's a pretty damned large number.

Even worse, while there are no numbers confirming it, it seems that the current generation has sunk even lower. The number of birth and development defects caused by deficient T-levels in young males has increased dramatically in the last 10-15 years.

Incidentally, when they test you for T-levels at the doctor's office, they base the 'healthy standard' off of the new average -- which is to say, a vastly reduced number.

It's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that hormonal levels affect mood and personality. It'd be hard to disprove that society hasn't become less masculine.

[The Winslow]

Personally, I think the reason men are proving to be more accepting of homosexuals in society is... lesbians. That's right, lesbians. [...] Sweet God, I'm surprised we haven't had an uprising of people demanding more rights for the pretty, pretty lesbians...

Which we probably would have, if heterosexual women didn't hate them so damned much. [...] This may be tied into why acceptance of homosexuality seems to have stalled among women. I really don't think it has anything to do with a 'ceiling'.

The lipstick lesbian in pr0n movies are pure sex fantasy. They don't equate in minds to real lesbians. To the contrary, the stereotyped image of the "butch dyke" is far from pretty. And women have their gay equivalent (they have entire subcultures on the Internet devoted to that, from slash fanfic writers -- nearly all of them are women -- to yaoi fangirls).

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

The guy who wrote the article is Charles M. Blow. :lol:

[Varaj]

No, we're getting less masculine as a society. That one's pretty hard to doubt. If you were born around 1970 or after, you probably have only about 75% of the testosterone level of your father. A full quarter reduction. Considering that a fairly small shift downward can affect bone growth, fat retention, muscle growth, make you moodier, make you more prone to clinical depression, and more susceptible to cancer, I'd say that's a pretty damned large number.


Every study I've read indicates a 20% drop not 75% drop.

[Ancalagon]

Every study I've read indicates a 20% drop not 75% drop.

He implied a 25% drop, re-read what he said ;)

That being said, citations please!

[Varaj]

He implied a 25% drop, re-read what he said ;)

That being said, citations please!

Yup my bad.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/92/1/196

[bunny]

I remember reading somewhere that the rise in oral birth control use among women has been very influential in the shift from idolizing John Wayne types as the Hollywood ideal to Jonny Depp and Orlando Bloom types. I forget the specifics, but it has something to do with women, when ovulating, are more attracted to burly strong men, but when pregnant (as oral bc simulates in the female body) are more inclined toward men who will be around to help raise the baby and not off hunting and trying to sleep with other women.

Also, studies have shown that the increased prevalence of soft plastics for packaging things such as food and water are also detrimental to testosterone levels.

I think the lesbian porn idea is cute, but unlikely. As Gael pointed out, it's all just fantasy. I'm inclined to side with the author that the number of virulently anti gay people who end up being outed really shifts the balance to make anyone who takes a strong anti gay stance sound like a self hating closet case.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think the idea that most people who hate gays are closet gays themselves is a fantasy as well. Some people are just ignorant bigots. While the idea that they might all be gay as well is poetic justice of a sort, I think it's largely a myth.

[Name Lips]

I think the idea that most people who hate gays are closet gays themselves is a fantasy as well. Some people are just ignorant bigots. While the idea that they might all be gay as well is poetic justice of a sort, I think it's largely a myth.

I have no idea how many of them are actually self-loathing gays.

But there are some weird arguments I've heard. Sometimes they talk about homosexuality like it's some sort of addictive "forbidden fruit" that, once exposed to, you crave and seek out. Or the belief that there are gays roaming the streets at night seeking out men to rape so they will be "indoctrinated" into the homosexual lifestyle against their will.

Seriously, some of the rhetoric makes homosexuality sound like a form of vampirism or lycanthropy which can be afflicted on the innocent against their will.

[bunny]

I think the idea that most people who hate gays are closet gays themselves is a fantasy as well. Some people are just ignorant bigots. While the idea that they might all be gay as well is poetic justice of a sort, I think it's largely a myth.

I'm not saying that all gay bashers are self hating closet cases, I'm just saying that enough fervent gay bashers have turned out to be closet cases to give gay bashing that sort of stigma.

[Freedom Canadian]

No, we're getting less masculine as a society. That one's pretty hard to doubt. If you were born around 1970 or after, you probably have only about 75% of the testosterone level of your father.

Maybe so, but gay men don't have less testosterone, so I fail to see what "masculinity" has to do with it.

[Northcott]

Every study I've read indicates a 20% drop not 75% drop.

Anc has the right of it! But I think a broader variety of studies is in order. The one you cite was a study performed on 65 year-old men -- and even in that demographic, when natural testosterone levels have already plumetted -- there's still a 16% difference. Other studies deal with information (if I'm remembering correctly) where they started taking measures in the 1950's, and contrasted modern levels with earlier measurements. The generation born in the early 1970's would have parents born in the 30's, 40's, and early 50's. That also goes beyond the parameters of the single study you brought up. It deals with test levels of men around 30-35 years of age, which is a very different thing.

I'd love to see one contrasting test levels in adolescents and men in their 20's -- that would be really telling, but I've never run across anything like that. Closest that comes is a notable rise in birth and development defects related to testosterone deficiencies.

(Bah! I did a quick search and couldn't turn up the stuff I'd read earlier. Some of it was hardcopy in the doctor's office, but it's probably online somewhere. I'll try and remember to dig around more thoroughly, later.)

Maybe so, but gay men don't have less testosterone, so I fail to see what "masculinity" has to do with it.

Are you sure about that? There's been some evidence pointing toward lesbian women having, on average, higher levels of testosterone than straight women. I can't say one way or the other, personally -- but it sounds like you're stating a belief as a fact.

Not that it's either here nor there. T levels don't measure the quality of a person as a member of society, but they may deeply impact the quality of life an individual experiences. I simply agreed with the notion that society has turned against old-fashioned notions of masculinity and embraced expressions of androgyny or feminizing males. So far as I can see, I didn't craft an explicit or implicit tie between gay men and test levels.

In seriousness, I agree with Scut: masculinity is derided. 'Testosterone' is often used as a dirty word or a derogatory term; a short-hand for slope-browed, dim-witted brutishness, or negatively stereotypical male behaviour. I don't believe that's entirely isolated from the various clusterfucks and bad decisions born of ignorance and cheap profiteering that have lead the media, politicians, and medical industry to treat a hormone as if it had some innate ethical component beyond its biological value.



Also: I'm kind of amused that anybody thought the "lesbian porn will save the world" comment wasn't tongue-in-cheek. :lol: Really? Knowing how uptight I am about shit, people thought I was being dead serious?!?

I think there's some (very small, overly simplistic) truth to that nonsense, but it was just a bit of fun. There are halfwits who have trouble reconciling their lipstick lesbian fantasies with the fact that they deride homosexuality as a general thing. They have a hate-on for anything remotely tied to homosexuality, but go glassy-eyed and start drooling when confronted with images of lipstick lesbians. I'm really not expecting world-changing behaviour from that sector of society. Hypocrites are rarely dependable.

[Northcott]

I think the idea that most people who hate gays are closet gays themselves is a fantasy as well. Some people are just ignorant bigots. While the idea that they might all be gay as well is poetic justice of a sort, I think it's largely a myth.

Some people are, but there's enough cases of fire & brimestone gay-haters turning out to be hidden deep in the proverbial closet that the stereotype has solid foundations.

One of the local priests went this route. He was a real hateful bastard when he wore a collar, too. Dropped out of the priesthood and moved in with his lover. Hopefully he's less of a hateful prick, now.

[The Winslow]

In seriousness, I agree with Scut: masculinity is derided. 'Testosterone' is often used as a dirty word or a derogatory term; a short-hand for slope-browed, dim-witted brutishness, or negatively stereotypical male behaviour. I don't believe that's entirely isolated from the various clusterfucks and bad decisions born of ignorance and cheap profiteering that have lead the media, politicians, and medical industry to treat a hormone as if it had some innate ethical component beyond its biological value.

You might like this webcomic (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/about/).

[Freedom Canadian]

Are you sure about that? There's been some evidence pointing toward lesbian women having, on average, higher levels of testosterone than straight women. I can't say one way or the other, personally -- but it sounds like you're stating a belief as a fact.

That's right, my bad. I have no opinion about the subject of testosterone. I just googled it quickly and that's what the first few links said. :)





I simply agreed with the notion that society has turned against old-fashioned notions of masculinity and embraced expressions of androgyny or feminizing males.

I also agree with that.

[Northcott]

You might like this webcomic (http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/about/).

I've only just taken a glance at it... but as a parody, I love it. First opinion: it's funny as Hell.

I suppose now somebody's going to tell me that it's wrong I think Hell is funny...


FC: One thing I've always liked/respected about you is how reasonable you are in conversations, and the even keel you keep in communicating with people. That's always impressed me. (Especially as I tend to launch off my mouth without even realizing it, at times)

[Hatter]

While adult gay men don't seem to differ significantly in hormonal levels from straight men, there has been some indication that hormonal levels in the womb may affect sexual orientation.

[Freedom Canadian]

FC: One thing I've always liked/respected about you is how reasonable you are in conversations, and the even keel you keep in communicating with people. That's always impressed me. (Especially as I tend to launch off my mouth without even realizing it, at times)

Thanks, man !

I do tend to nitpick a lot, though.

As for me, I respect the strength of your convictions.

Awww, I sense a :grouphug: coming ! :D

[Northcott]

While adult gay men don't seem to differ significantly in hormonal levels from straight men, there has been some indication that hormonal levels in the womb may affect sexual orientation.

Interesting. That's also part of what they're looking at for the source of a number of the birth and development defects that have been occurring. I've heard some talk about the potential effects of soy-based baby formulas as well, but there's scant evidence of soy having a detrimental effect on sexual development in males, despite (apparently) centuries of folklore pointing in that direction.

However, as that belief seems to have developed separately in different regions, I've got a "where there's smoke, there's fire" sort of attitude about it.

I do remember something a few years ago about a University out in BC claiming that they believed they'd found the region of the brain in sheep that determines homosexuality or heterosexuality, and that there was a difference in function that caused the orientation; determined before birth. The next step was to try and identify the same in humans. I don't know if they ever did.

[Hatter]

Human sexuality is rather more complex than sheep, I suspect.

[Name Lips]

Interesting. That's also part of what they're looking at for the source of a number of the birth and development defects that have been occurring. I've heard some talk about the potential effects of soy-based baby formulas as well, but there's scant evidence of soy having a detrimental effect on sexual development in males, despite (apparently) centuries of folklore pointing in that direction.


I wonder... if anybody has ever done a study where the compared homosexuality rates to breastfeeding/bottlefeeding. It would be really interesting (and incendiary!) if there was a correlation.

[Northcott]

I wonder... if anybody has ever done a study where the compared homosexuality rates to breastfeeding/bottlefeeding. It would be really interesting (and incendiary!) if there was a correlation.

Wouldn't it just? Or imagine if they drew the line between women on the pill for X years, or women not; there's some indication that being on the pill may alter SHBG levels (which basically fucks over testosterone in your body) permanently -- so there may be subtle, long-term effects we're not seeing. Besides apparently changing mating patterns to favour softer, more feminine males, that is.

Which also has disturbing long-term implications if one thinks about things in a projection of generations, rather than the here and now...


Human sexuality is rather more complex than sheep, I suspect.

Maybe. I don't know. I've always been of the opinion that people overestimate our species as often as not, and tend to forget that we're just animals with a lot of attitude and ego-centric PR attached to them. If they're finding that a particular tweak in the brain's function, established before birth, is the root of homosexuality (and as the brain controls damned near everything about us, that makes perfect sense), then why would that be vastly different between mammals? Granted, it could be, but it also wouldn't shock me to find out it was very similar.

Sure, rednecks may then scream that homosexuality is brain damage (which, of course, is entirely missing the real point), but it also errodes that nonsensical "they can choose to be different" crap that so many of them spew. Hateful twits will always find something negative to say, though.

[bunny]

In seriousness, I agree with Scut: masculinity is derided. 'Testosterone' is often used as a dirty word or a derogatory term; a short-hand for slope-browed, dim-witted brutishness, or negatively stereotypical male behaviour. I don't believe that's entirely isolated from the various clusterfucks and bad decisions born of ignorance and cheap profiteering that have lead the media, politicians, and medical industry to treat a hormone as if it had some innate ethical component beyond its biological value.

Be that as it may, it's still a bad thing to be a pussy and a good thing to have balls in our society, so read into it what you will.

[Radu]

The "very quick have read the thread but not the fine points of source materials cited but want to chime in anyway" reaction:

It may be that a testosterone change could account for this, but I think (hope) it also is possible that it could reflect a fundamental shift in attitude and perspective.

More men accept homosexuality doesn't mean more men condone it or practice it... it means that more men accept it as something that exists in our society and isn't going away.

In this respect, it could be seen as somewhat akin to my acceptance of emo rock and modern pop/r&b music: I don't like it and in fact think it is really terrible music but I acknowledge that Justin Bieber is not, in fact, going away any time soon. Accepting the reality that's staring you in the face doesn't mean you are an advocate in any way, it means you've chosen to deal with it rather than sweep things under the rug or fight a battle that's already been lost.

(I should emphasize here that I'm irritated by emo but not by gays, lest my analogy be mis-interpreted. I'm ambivalent in my daily actions towards gays because I don't see how it's an issue and an active advocacy of equality when it comes to rights.)

I'm going to look at those links later-- it seems like interesting reading.

[tleilaxu]

In seriousness, I agree with Scut: masculinity is derided. 'Testosterone' is often used as a dirty word or a derogatory term; a short-hand for slope-browed, dim-witted brutishness, or negatively stereotypical male behaviour. I don't believe that's entirely isolated from the various clusterfucks and bad decisions born of ignorance and cheap profiteering that have lead the media, politicians, and medical industry to treat a hormone as if it had some innate ethical component beyond its biological value.

here is my read of the situation, and i am interested in whether y'all think there is any meat on the bone.

the claim: masculinity is less valued today than before.

here is my question, who is valuing what? do you mean men have less regard for traditional ideas about what makes a man a man? do you mean women have less regard for this traditional masculinity? or, do todays media show less regard for what was previously lauded as the masculine ideal? all of the above?

there are multiple segments of society, multiple perspectives valuing different traits, and multiple ideals for maleness. in the 20th century, public discourse in north america was largely dominated by males. for the purpose of discussion, let us accept this as a historical fact, and furthermore accept that (at least starting in the 1960's) our public discourse has been accessable by a more diverse group of people (IE women, non-WASPs, etc).

so, we have a mid-20th century discursive norm where the valuation of maleness was given by males, and judged by males. this conversation dominated the media of the time. we have a contemporary norm where those from more varied backgrounds might have their perceptions heard in public media . but does this mean "masculinity" (ie the understanding of masculinity given and consumed by males) is less valued by males, or does the media instead reflect the perhaps more skeptical appreciation of this dominant form of masculinity that might have always been there, but was more muted in the past?

in other words, those who were not WASP males, who did not perform masculinity as was understood by those with access and control of public media and discourse, were never that impressed with said masculinity in the first place. perhaps this diversity of opinion was always there, but males (in their dominant position) previously did not need to deal with such skepticism, allowing the illusion that everyone else thought their version of masculinity was as great as they themsleves thought it to be.

is it possible that lamenting the 'decline' of masculinity is in fact just males coming to terms with the fact they aren't running the show as in the past, and aren't framing the conversation with such exclusivity? is it possible the "devaluation" of masculinity is in fact merely a more explicit representation of the multipicity of views in society, more inclusive of groups who were previously excluded?

[Northcott]

Be that as it may, it's still a bad thing to be a pussy and a good thing to have balls in our society, so read into it what you will.

True. Yet the use of language is slower to change than the implicit meaning carried by words; I've heard many youths who have no problem with homosexuality using 'gay' as a derisive term -- which leads to conflict with older members of the gay/lesbian community who don't deliniate and/or perceive the potential danger of the cross-over of language into perception.

More particularly, the limited discrepancy between use of male and female-based terms to describe positive or negative traits has become a much refined thing; it's considered politically incorrect, and in some cases extremely offensive, to use female-based terms, slang, or obscenities (call someone a pussy or a cunt and watch people's noses turn up)... but call somebody a dick and people barely blink.

Read into that what you will.


here is my read of the situation, and i am interested in whether y'all think there is any meat on the bone.

(snip)

is it possible that lamenting the 'decline' of masculinity is in fact just males coming to terms with the fact they aren't running the show as in the past, and aren't framing the conversation with such exclusivity? is it possible the "devaluation" of masculinity is in fact merely a more explicit representation of the multipicity of views in society, more inclusive of groups who were previously excluded?

Meat on the bone? Not really. You start by acknowledging that there are many perceived forms of masculinity, but then end by implicitly dismissing the devaluation of it in modern society based upon a very narrow perception of it, to the point of dropping quotation marks around the terms decline and devaluation.

It may be that a testosterone change could account for this, but I think (hope) it also is possible that it could reflect a fundamental shift in attitude and perspective.

My personal take, being more serious about this, is that the broad-ranging decline of testosterone levels among males in the western world (and given the global impact of certain pollutants, I'd be willing to bet that it's not confined here, just studied more) is not the prime factor in such a thing -- perhaps a factor, but not the prime one.

I don't believe that simple, straightforward answers are the most honest when looking at subjects with broad impact or influences. I think that as a society, we've been on the march toward seeking greater equality among diverse populations... well, shit, for a long time. Probably the entirety of our history as a species. A slow, fumbling progress toward an understanding that 'them' is exclusive, whereas 'us' is how we need to be thinking. The more information is spread throughout the general populace, the more we come to accept that it's not the guy across town, but our neighbour, our sons, our daughters, our loved ones who are impacted by societal moores... the more we can shake off our fears and insecurities and allow people a general quality of life... the more we're forced to grapple with a societal structure that was originally founded toward security through exclusion.

This isn't to say the old way is worthless, but we obviously can't function the same way we did 1,000 years ago. So we adapt and tweak.

As the rights of women, black people, and other 'minorities' grew, it was inevitable that it would extend. Homosexuals were going to eventually benefit.

I don't think that declining testosterone levels are chiefly responsible for this. I do, however, think that they may have aided it in some way: not because it's 'making society gay', or some such nonsense, nor that high testosterone men are more likely to descriminate against gays (for all I know, there's not even a difference in hormonal levels between gay and straight men).

However, there are certain things we can arguably call 'facts' in this scenario:
1) Gay men have, rightly or wrongly, been perceived to be more feminine. There is often a sense of aesthetics attributed to them that is lacking in the stereotypical heterosexual male, as well as an expectation of more feminine/less masculine physical attributes.

2) Higher testosterone levels do indeed seem to blunt some emotional responses, creating a more stereotypical 'masculine' response to situations. Some might call it stoic. It seems that repressing/internalizing emotions may actually be a hormonal function. Then there are the physical traits: development of body hair, thickening of bones and muscles, etc.

3) Recent studies indicate that the birth control pill may not only permanently damage the hormonal profile of those who take it (which may in turn lead to effects on children in the womb), but also seem to alter what women are attracted to: less likely to go for 'masculine' males, and more likely to be attracted to individuals with physical traits that indicate lower testosterone levels: less body hair, thinner builds, less muscle, a certain configuration of facial features, etc. While this may be societal, the discrepancy in responses between women on the pill and women who aren't was enough for the researchers to think it noteworthy.

4) Heterosexual men will often modify themselves to become what they think women will find attractive.

5) The shift in advertising and marketing reflects these trends in more androgynous males being selected to represent male iconography in mass media.

So we've got a situation where -- breeding-wise -- men with more feminine traits (and so likely lower T-levels) are being valued. There is an implication that they will be more successful in breeding. There's the possible effects of the pill. Even outside of environmental contamination from plastics or chemicals, we must look at the effect of selection and genetics.

Roll that in with the stereotype (true or not) of homosexual males, and you have a lesser degree of separation. An increased sense of 'us' rather than 'them'. A contributing (but not determining) factor in reduction of discrimination.

All of that said: there are many ancient societies who obviously would not be contending with the modern issues that are reducing T-levels in males, but who didn't have the same issues regarding homosexuality. My guess is that's because their sense of us/them wasn't based on the paradigm of the individual, but the notion of the group unit.

If memory serves: The Spartan identity was based off of military service to the state, women were viewed chiefly as breeding machines, and men had no problem with the notion of homosexuality.

Whereas there's some indication that certain Celtic tribes may have had a much more focus on the individual, a certain distrust of centralized authority, held women in a higher status, but viewed homosexuality in a far more negative light. A different set of parameters for us/them.

In the modern world our sense of 'us' is expanding and becoming more inclusive. I think that's the prime mover behind the growth of acceptance. I think that the stereotypical perception of homosexuality, combined with the shift in other factors both societal and hormonal, dovetailed to help nudge it along.

But it's not like I'm a scientist or a PhD. That's just my ground-level view of shit.

[Name Lips]

Missing data: Do gay men actually have lower testosterone than heterosexual men?

[The Winslow]

A big part of traditional virility is strength; since on average men are physically stronger than women, especially in the arms and hands.

We've got all sorts of machines that make upper-body strength a lot less important than in the past.

[Hatter]

Missing data: Do gay men actually have lower testosterone than heterosexual men?

No. This is well documented and fairly easy to study. Homosexuality in men used to be 'treated' with testosterone injections under this belief until scientists figured out that there's no hormonal differences in adult homosexuals compared to adult heterosexuals.

[Northcott]

Thanks, Hatter. More data for the pile.

There's actually several hormones that trigger certain behaviours in men; Testosterone's one of the prime ones, but not the only one. It'd be interesting to try and get a broad cross-section across the board to see if there are any differences at all. My personal hunch is that it's a neurological difference, rather than hormonal, though in lesbians they've found a significant enough difference to make note of it.

I hadn't heard that they used to attempt to 'treat' homosexuality with hormone injections. Sad, but not surprising.

Heh. All they did was make hornier, stronger gay men. When you look at it that way, then imagine the dawning horror of the homophobes who were doing the treatments as they realized this, it's actually kind of funny...

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Imagine them with a cinderblock...:boggle:

[Hatter]

My personal hunch is that it's a neurological difference, rather than hormonal, though in lesbians they've found a significant enough difference to make note of it.

A Swedish team actually found that gay men and straight women brains respond to the scent of testosterone-derived chemicals with both the olfactory centers and the sexual arousal centers while straight men brains only respond with the olfactory centers. (link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7791888/))

This supports the idea that homosexuality is based on neurological differences.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I always though gay people were gay because God thought they were funny, just like Jews. The Jews became chosen, and the gays became fabulous.

[Lady_Acoma]

I keep reading this thread, going through the citations, enjoying the debate... But I can't get my mind stop circling around how most of the gay men I know seemed to express more interest toward the masculine side then the fem side.

I have only known one guy who I would say was really a bear chaser. But I also had a bi roommate who attracted a great deal of attention because he was a big burly guy who rode a Harley and could actually pull off a kilt for everyday fashion cause he just had the look.

This has very little to do with societal views on masculinity except for the fact that I seem to know guys that tend toward "manlier" men. However, amongst women that I have known who will watch gay porn they want the fem boys. I will be the first to admit though that those women had a whole dominance thing going on in their heads too.

[Trainz]

I always though gay people were gay because God thought they were funny, just like Jews. The Jews became chosen, and the gays became fabulous.

And how is it now?