Skip to content

Human Nature And Homosexuality

14 June 2011 @ 11:13

A thought provoking snippet from James Taranto’s Best Of The Web column from yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum]:

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is amenable to therapeutic remedies–or so Anthony Weiner and his fellow House Democrats would like us to believe. "Congressman Weiner departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person," Weiner flack Risa Heller told the New York Times Saturday. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi publicly called on Weiner to resign:

In addition to her concerns about the political distraction Mr. Weiner had become, Ms. Pelosi concluded that his behavior required medical intervention.

"When you are this self-destructive, there is obviously something deeper going on with you," said a Pelosi adviser who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being seen as betraying her confidence.

At least the Times didn’t write ". . . for fear of betraying her confidence."

But the idea that Weiner has a medical problem is ludicrous. Indisputably, his behavior was sleazy and foolish. It turned out to be self-destructive too, but only because it was publicly exposed. Had he been more technically savvy, it’s quite possible that he could have covered his tracks and never put his career in jeopardy.

On what basis does one posit that there is "something deeper going on"? To explain what motivated his actions, it is sufficient to observe that he seems to have a healthy male libido–indeed, perhaps a bit too healthy. Of course, "I’m sick" is just the latest in a string of Weiner excuses: "I was hacked," "I take full responsibility," etc. But it is also an example of his feminist hypocrisy. It is as if a family-values conservative were caught in gay sex chats and announced that he was entering therapy to overcome his "sick" homosexual impulses.

Contemporary feminism’s formula for "equality" is to treat male ambition as the norm for both sexes but male sexuality as abnormal–either immoral or pathological, depending on the context. A fascinating example appeared over the weekend in the New York Times, in a Week in Review article pondering the mystery of why "female politicians rarely get caught up in sex scandals."

The explanation is actually quite simple if you accept the sexual differences between men and women….

While I certainly agree with him on the high hypocrisy of the Feminists, I gather from reading the full post that Mr. Taranto believes that homosexual impulses cannot be overcome. Why not?

Is it not reasonable to assume, knowing something about human nature, that some women choose to be lesbians because they fear intimacy with men or have been so brutalized by men that they seek the physical and mental comfort they need in the arms of another woman [ie: with someone immediately empathetic]?

Is it not reasonable to assume, once again, having observed one’s fellow human beings in action, that some men choose to be homosexuals because they fear intimacy with women or don’t like the civilizing restrictions women impose on their libidos? In the male homosexual world, random and unrestricted sex is possible – there are enough homosexual men willing to do it, damn the consequences.

This is not to say that homosexuality may not be ‘wired’ [the verdict is still out], but are we to believe, contradictory to our knowledge of human nature, that all practicing homosexuals are ‘wired’ this way?

3 Comments
  1. Otis P. Driftwood permalink
    14 June 2011 @ 12:30 12:30

    Interesting point of view. I’ve never really given this much thought, one way or the other.

  2. Roxeanne de Luca permalink
    14 June 2011 @ 12:45 12:45

    Is it not reasonable to assume, once again, having observed one’s fellow human beings in action, that some men choose to be homosexuals because they fear intimacy with women or don’t like the civilizing restrictions women impose on their libidos?

    Given that some of them think that the only sexual perversion possible is chastity, yes.

    Not applicable to all gay men, certainly, but it’s a good point – and even if it didn’t start out as a perversion, it certainly becomes one later.

  3. 14 June 2011 @ 16:13 16:13

    Given that we live in a society that considers virginity a form of sexual deviance (I should know; I was a virgin for 22 years), how can you believe anything any of the so-called experts have to say on matters of sexuality?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: