My Operalots of stuff - monthly update
Monday, November 19, 2007 8:03:14 PM
It's been more than a month, so I just have to write something down here, otherwise people might start thinking I'm dead.
The past month was not that interesting. Nothing special really happened.
One of the highlights though was the concert of Rufus Wainwright in Brussels last Friday. I know his music for about a year now, and I must say I find him fantastic. His performance was great!
Another pleasant thing was the baptising of Ilse's little nephew. I've never been to a baptism before, and I must say it was special. It was a very nice and funny priest, and also the party afterwards was fun.
You might wonder why I have posted this photo of a chicken. Well, I guess I haven't introduced you yet, which is quiet a shame. This is my (or should I say our) chicken at home. I brought here home in April and called her Marie-Antionnette. She's kind of character!
Now I'm finally making some money myself, I'm finally finding out what kinds of stuff that need to be paid. I am really overwhelmed by the complicatedness of it all. All these different things that need to be paid to the Belgian state, but also my costs for professional licences as well as insurances, ... It isn't as simple as it seems like. I think I now finally managed to get a clear overview of it all, but still... why does everything needs to be so complicated?
---Warning, explicit content here---
I recently saw Brokeback Mountain for the first time. It was an enjoyable and touchy movie, but I think it was hyped maybe a little bit too much. Yes, it deals about a gay men relationship, and maybe that's rather special for a Hollywood, but besides that it was just a good movie, nothing more.
This movie however started my thinking about some things that are hard to get. A few questions pop to mind. What is love? When can you consider someone to be gay? What's the role of sexual attraction?
Let's start with the second question. When is someone gay? Most people would answer that someone is gay when (s)he loves someone of the same gender (and we're talking about love between two partners, not someting like a father-son relationship). But having seen Brokeback Mountain ànd reality, we actually know this is not completely true. There are gay men who are married to women, and I guess a lot of them were very happy when they married and they loved their wife. It's also very possible that these people had a satisfying sexual relationship as well. But when after a whole, such a man choses to leave his wife for another guy, than it's a homosexual. But what was he before, when he still loved his wife?
This brings me to the conclusion that being gay is more than just being in love with someone of the same gender, no, it has to do with sex. Now, does that mean that being gay is all about sex and more? Certainly not, but I think it puts the term love in a different perspective.
When a man loves a woman he's heterosexual, when he loves other men he's gay, and when he loves both, he's bisexual. Or our these just 3 categories to categorize people? Maybe it's like Freud said, maybe everyone is bisexual but for one person the heterosexuality is more dominant than the homosexual and vice versa.
Another thing I have never understood about some gay/lesbian people is why they are attracted to certain types of people. Sometimes you see a couple lesbians, one woman is very feminine, and the other one is very masculine. Why would a lesbian (who falls in love with women) fall in love with someone with a male appearance? You also see the same with some queer guys, some gays really fall in love with other guys looking very feminine, while they actually like men, so what does attract them? This raises the same question again, is it just that gay people are just attracted towards each other just because of the sex, and they don't care for the appearance? Or is it just plain simple love that stands above things like sex? But if that's the case, why can't they fall in love with someone of a different gender?
These thoughts are in no way meant to hurt, stigmatize (or whatever) gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals. These are just some questions that recently crossed my mind, and haven't really found a satisfying answer. I guess I'm just trying to get a better understanding of these things...
kerrykerrykait # Tuesday, November 20, 2007 1:42:51 AM
"The original human being was a round creature who just keep on rolling. There were three types of these human beings: one was male-male; the other was female-female; and the third was male-female.
One day these beings annoyed Zeus, and Zeus decided to cut them in half.
Since that time each half-human has been searching for its soul-mate: the male-male seek out males; the female-female seeks out women; and the male-female seeks out a male or female."
This is just a way, of course, to explain what the Greeks knew - that there were heterosexuals, homosexuals and lesbians. In ancient Greek society, homosexuality was quite acceptable.
To me, sexuality is in the genes - it's hard-wired in the brain. Do you really think anyone would choose to be gay in a world where being gay is so miserable? Nope, you are born hetero- or homo - it's genetic.
It is not a sin to find and love your soul-mate.
RobbyStuk Chocolat # Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:30:01 PM
It might be something genetic or not. Although there is no real research on this, homosexuality is apparently not inheretable. This however, is not a proof for homosexuality not being genetic. I think it's rather evident it has to do with hormones, but if it's really genetic... I suppose it's certainly possible.
As you say, who would choose to be gay in a world like this? Although being gay might be as simple is genes, it's the human interactions that makes things complicated I guess.
TreeCatTreeCat_ # Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:41:38 PM
William M. Byne, MD, PhD
Title: Director, Laboratory of Neuroanatomy and Morphometrics, Mount Sinai School of Medicine
"Recent studies postulate biologic factors as the primary basis for sexual orientation. However, there is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory, just as there is no compelling evidence to support any singular psychosocial explanation. While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges. Because such traits may be heritable or developmentally influenced by hormones, the model predicts an apparent nonzero heritability for homosexuality without requiring that either genes or hormones directly influence sexual orientation per se."
"Human Sexual Orientation. The Biologic Theories Reappraised," Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 50 No. 3, Mar. 1993