I was surprised to see ifeminists.com linking to a study reported in the Journal of Human Sexuality, a journal apparently motivated by a “Christian biblical perspective,” and carried out by N.A.R.T.H., the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, another admittedly conservative outfit.
This doesn’t necessarily mean the science behind the study is bogus, but as a heuristic device the confession of a Christian bias is a poor way to convey scientific credibility.
The study purports to show that therapy is successful in helping homosexuals overcome their same-sex attraction over the long term. Prominent gay activist Peter Tatchell believes homosexuals have a choice too - and they ought to embrace it! And in an interview here Steven Pinker states that only about 30-40% of the variance in sexual orientation can be explained by genetic predisposition.
July 10, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Steve Levitt (perhaps inappropriately) highlighted some research a grad student of his did that knowledge of AIDs shifted men towards heterosexuality on the margins. Behavior is what we can observe, and we know that can shift in prison.
The last (and only, I think) time I heard of N.A.R.T.H was when Helen Reynolds did a podcast with a guy from there who actually played a role in removing homosexuality from the D.S.M.
July 11, 2009 at 6:23 am
Regarding the norms of sexual behavior, someone did once point out that when it comes to homosexuality, what we consider to be the most objectional, sex betwee an adult man and a boy, was considered perfectly unobjectionable, and indeed, normal, in the Classical world.
What we consider the most normal, or maybe least objectionable — a long-term, quasi-marital relationship between grown men, would have been considered absurd, if not insane, in the Classical world.
July 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm
[...] Entitled to an Opinion [...]
July 13, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Weren’t the Greek male pairs most disposed toward intercrural sex? And FWIW, the “boys” in those pairs were adolescents, not pre-adolescents.
RE the post– feminists and christians have a common enemy: gay men. fems and xtians both are trying to moderate and subsume that large demographic of openly, half-openly, and closeted gay men. I mean ‘gay’ very loosely.
July 14, 2009 at 3:01 pm
The ancient Greeks probably were in favor of homosexuality for two reasons: because women in their society were kept so ignorant that no real intellectual relationship between most members of different genders was possible, and because homosexuality permits sexuality without the risk of pregnancy.
I cannot understand why people confuse the idea of “not being determined by genes” with “not biologically predetermined”. There are all sorts of birth defects that aren’t linked (or not strongly linked) with genetics, yet they aren’t a matter of choice to any degree.
July 14, 2009 at 10:30 pm
i have a tough time swallowing “no real intellectual relationship” b/w men/women as a reason to advance/prefer the classical type of ‘homosexuality’. As if any man these days cared much about such a thing, or wanted to get any intellectual satisfaction from a female partner…just saying.
July 15, 2009 at 2:21 pm
You seem to be speaking from bitterness rather than a realistic appraisal. Junk food may be tasty, but I don’t know anyone who’s looking to change their diet to nothing but nachos and Twinkies. Short-term cravings, sure – but such gorging would be revolting in the long-term.
July 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Assortive mating confirms that increasingly men do want intellectual satisfaction from a female partner.
July 16, 2009 at 6:34 pm
We know that it is women who have strong in-group preferences when it comes to race, whereas men are beggars that can’t be choosers. Couldn’t it also be the case that it is women’s preference for shared educational level that is resulting in assortive mating?
July 16, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I love a woman who is quick-witted but not necessarily at the right tail of the bell curve.
July 16, 2009 at 6:58 pm
We know that it is women who have strong in-group preferences when it comes to race, whereas men are beggars that can’t be choosers. Couldn’t it also be the case that it is women’s preference for shared educational level that is resulting in assortive mating?
Given that a majority of college graduates are now women, this could be the case. I think when you reach the level of a Masters or PhD in the humanities and social sciences, you get the kind of people who find intellect (distinct from “intelligence”?) intrinsically valuable and seek it out in a long term partner.
August 5, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Just to be pedantic, women overtook men in terms of college graduates back in 1982 (source; you can also wade through the the Census Statistical Abstracts if you want).
July 16, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The notion that men take no interest in whether the women with whom they become involved — and particularly, with whom they reproduce — are intelligent/interesting/clever/whatever-you-want-to-call-it is one that I’ve encountered far more often on the internet than in real life.
In my experience, most men look for compatibility, and the degree of intelligence is a significant factor in compatibility. After all, you’re going to spend a hell of a lot more time listening to (or pretending to listen to) the other person than you are in screwing. And this will really be true if you wind up marrying.
There is also the issue of offpsring, and consciously or subsconscioulsy selecting for postive characteristics one wants for one’s kids. This isn’t only true for the braniac crowd. People of average intelligence may not gravitate toward geniuses, but they still feel a mild disdain for morons, and most people would prefer to have bright kids.
Finally, there is the issue of self-image or pride. Most men with some brains are vaguely embarrased to be dating a dolt, and usually try to laugh it off by claiming that it^s just a brief fling. Still, the fact that they have to laugh it off . . .
Anyway, this has been my experience among the people I’ve know, but on sites like Half Sigma and roissy, I run across these commenters (purportedly intelligent, though I often have my doubts) who claim not to care at all about a women’s smarts, and who claim that this disposition is the norm among men.
Maybe it’s an asperger’s kind of thing, or more likely, as someone suggested above, bitterness.
August 7, 2009 at 9:00 am
It involves self-report, so keep that in mind, but according to Buss et al.*, men value intelligence behind mutual attraction/love, dependable character, emotional stability/maturity, and pleasing disposition (here is a copy of the relevant page).
*Buss, D.M., Shackelford, T.K., Kirkpatrick, L.A., and Larsen, R.J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 491-503.
August 7, 2009 at 9:47 am
Certainly interesting data, within its limitations. A lot of the categories overlap in a big way, but I suppose respondents probably rated each category separately and non-relatively.
“Good looks” is the eighth most important feature in a woman? Hmmm. I take it these men were not made to swear on the holy bible.
August 6, 2009 at 6:50 am
I would be wary of marrying someone dumb. What if they ran up debt, or did a bunch of other stupid crap? It’s not like you can control someone else. Dating someone cute but dumb, yeah, but a long term legal entanglement? Uh, no thanks.
August 6, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The whole “it’s 99% about looks” thing is just a caricature. Certain enthusiastic realists are committed to pursue tough-minded realism relentlessly, even into the realm of fantasy.
To me intelligence is attractive even beyond its importance for conversation. Intelligence (and knowledge) would be major factors even if I were hypothetically just going to make out with some girl for an hour, without ever hearing a single word from her.
Of course, I’m not sure how I’m supposed to ascertain her intelligence without us talking. I suppose I would need to examine an official college transcript. I really hope she doesn’t ask to see mine, though.
Incidentally also find a lot of consensus views on who’s good looking to be pretty mystifying.