Here Thar Be Monsters!

From the other side of the argument to the other side of the planet, read in over 149 countries and 17 languages. We bring you news and opinion with an IndoTex® flavor. Be sure to check out Radio Far Side. Send thoughts and comments to luap.jkt at gmail, and tell all your friends. Sampai jumpa, y'all.


Breeders, Bumpers And Packers

A recent article in the UK's Independent, tweaked one of my hot buttons, and as usual, no matter what I say on this topic, someone will get their panties in a bunch.

The article concerns a new study averring that about half of all humans carry "gay" genes.  This article just irks me on a number of levels, the highest of which is the complete disconnect between what is taught as science "fact," and what these ridiculous studies (read tax money scams) are constantly telling us.

Before I get to the whole "gay" gene bit, let's just look at the assertion here.  An activity that has no reproductive benefit at all can still leave genes in the general genome for generations.

Does anyone else see the problem here?  Either Darwinism, which is shoved down our throats with all the zeal of the Spanish Inquisition dictating the Credo, is flat wrong, or the desperate attempts to make homosexuality a natural rather than behavioral phenomenon has reached new heights of hysteria.

So...which is it?  Are we products of millions of years of natural selection where our behaviors are the products of Life's Herculean struggle to survive against all odds, or not?  The conclusion of this study denies even the most basic tenets of Darwinian mythology and even makes a desperate attempt to rationalize the fact.

While the argument may satisfy the PC crowd and add to the chants of "I am normal," it is, none-the-less, a complete refutation of evolutionary thought.  Since homosexuals obviously do not reproduce, there is no way in hell that a "gay" gene would survive more than a few generations under the assertions of Holy Scripture (namely On the Origins of Species).  The foundation of Darwinian Fantasy, since the late 1800s, is that all human behavior, and indeed all surviving genomes, is to reproduce, and that all behavior is somehow tied to that one function.

This proposition brings to mind Friedrich Nietzsche's very public breakdown upon witnessing a horse being beaten.  After his very public career of spouting the glories of Darwinism and the primacy survival behavior (see Albert Camus' artistic rendering in The Stranger), he realized that the powerful emotion of compassion fit nowhere into his carefully crafted weltanschauung.  The radical disconnect between his vaunted theories and his true emotions caused his great pain and death.

So it is with this ridiculous study.  Anyone who truly espouses Darwinian evolution must read this study and have their minds explode.  There is simply no way to justify the survival of a "gay" gene within the universe of "survival of the fittest."  One or the other must go.  Preferably both.

Now, before I get lots of angry email, let me remind the gentle reader that I have spent literally my entire life in the entertainment industry, from being a clothes model at age 3, to most recently completing construction of Indonesia's first international theater at my dottering old age.  In that time, I have met and worked closely with and befriended every conceivable iteration of the sexual spectrum.  I have played gay characters on stage.  I have no qualms about hugging and kissing other men and I am very open-minded and libertarian in my views on other's pursuits of happiness.  To each hizzer own.  By the way, I just made that pronoun up (it means his or her).  Anyone in the rabid PC movement that wants to use it must pay me $1 per use.

I do, however, feel sad for the LGBT activists whose only definition of Self is who/what they choose to sleep with.  C'mon...LGBT tourism, dining, clubs, they seriously encompass their entire definition of Self based on how they use their genitalia?  If so, then it is a very sad thing and we should mourn for those whose entire lives are lost to the singular pursuit of sexual gratification.

Based on my considerable experience with people of all stripes, I conclude without reservation that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic imperative.  I don't care how passionately one argues that they were born a certain way or that they have no control over their proclivities, I say emphatically it is a choice.

Humans, in my experience, tend to sexualize things they fear or long for the most.  Those who fear pain will often seek to turn the fear into a form of pleasure.  Those who are fearful of being assertive will instead use the fear as a masochist to gain some mesure of control over it.  Those who fear women might turn it to dominance and even rape fantasies.

The entire spectrum of fetishes and fantasies, so readily on display now on the internet, show to me that people fill some void or short-coming in themselves by turning that fear or emptiness into a means of deriving pleasure.  It is a psychological defense mechanism.

For instance, a man who felt jilted by girls in his formative years might turn to schoolgirl fantasies in order to take control of his feelings of loss.  A woman who lacked a positive male presence in her formative years might take on masculine behaviors and roles in order to fill in where her life did not.

Many will argue with me, and many have, but I grew up on a farm.  I have seen every imaginable creature attempt sex with their own gender, from turtles to horses.  And frankly, dogs will hump anything they can get their paws around.  I have seen no one argue in favor of all of creation having a "gay" gene to explain this behavior.  Sex is like water, it will find the easiest path to an outlet to relieve pressure.  That humans have the capacity to overlay that impulse with fantasy, fetish and rationalization is a function of our mental processes, not of a "gay" gene.

The passing off of pseudo-science as a means to political ends is not a service to anyone.  While it may assuage some fevered liberal brows and promote the general direction of socio-political discourse, it does nothing to uncover truth and deal with prejudices.  This tendency rises to the level of absurdity when feel-good studies fundamentally contradict the Establishment Narrative.  We minions are constantly left in fits of cognitive dissonance because we are brow-beaten with contradictory messages and are forced into the position of holding opposing beliefs at the same time.

It's no wonder the incidence of mental illness are rising exponentially in the West, though the situation isn't helped by the fact that the pseudo-science of psychology has defined practically every twitch and tingle as a mental illness.

It is time to put an end to all this silliness.  First, Darwinism is wrong...just plain wrong.  Second, humans will do what they can in pursuit of happiness, and as long as each allows the other that right, everyone can be happy (or at least try).  Third, those who define themselves in the socio-political realm solely by who they sleep with are hopelessly myopic.  And fourth, humans are neither slaves to each other, nor to genetics.  No matter what our DNA hands us, we are capable of overcoming it or enhancing it freely, provided we put in the effort.  Any other point of view is a surrender to the wind.

This argument comes down to a fundamental question of weltanschauung.  We are either Aristotelian or Platonic.  Either we believe completely in materialism and that an individual is nothing more than a set of reproductive impulses, or we believe that we can and should transcend our physicality and seek higher states of being.

I, for one, will continue to hold the opinion that I am far more than a seething cauldron of electro-chemical impulses.  My sexuality is not who I am, it is one thing I do along my path to fulfillment.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to leave your own view of The Far Side.