Thursday, February 26, 2009


So, in regards to the post yesterday (“I got the Cruise Control Set at 35”)
Jarret asks a good question:

Ok the awesome story of the begining of The Lawrence Arms aside let me start by saying I'm 100% pro gay but isn't the whole your born with leanings not absolutes kind of lending credibility to the Christian-Right with their whole "your not born gay" stuff? Just wondering what everyone else thinks

Well, here’s the thing, man. What I said yesterday, and let’s make no mistake, I’m no geneticist, I’m no biologist, in fact, I’m nothing with an ‘ist’ on the end of it as far as a quick scan has determined (sure, I’m a bassist, vocalist, blogist, egocentrist, beastialist, sensualist, Methodist, pansexualist, Athiest, polythieist, oligarchist, man with a wrist, master of the sensual fist, and so forth, but you get my meaning) but what I was saying (which, again, I’d like to stress I heard on a radio show about training dogs, so we’re dealing with some high science here) was that people have all these genetic predispositions that need triggers in the real world to set them off. Eventually, a bunch of them get fired off and you end up just like your parents after a while (this is really very depressing info that’s probably much better articulated in the last entry). That’s not saying that you’re born with leanings and not absolutes. That’s saying that there usually needs to be a trigger for these absolutes to manifest. Lots of them happen almost right away, and lots of them wait until you’re at a diner celebrating your seventieth birthday alone and someone brings you cold coffee and you just fucking snap.
Now, without listing my lack of credentials again, let me just say that when it comes to sexuality, I don’t think that ANYONE is really very sexual when they’re infants. I think people are born with preferences and awareness of difference. There’s a difference between the way my son interacts with males and females, and I’d tend to say, based on my empirical observation, that he seems like he’s a heterosexual child. If that’s not the case, great. I like this kid a lot and whoever makes him happy makes me happy. I don’t care if they’ve got a dick or tits or both, honestly. It’s really not something I worry about. Fuck, if he’s gay, he’ll probably be able to tell me about a lot cooler of restaurants when he gets older, right? BUT, regardless, like I said, I think he seems like a heterosexual child. However, I don’t think that ANY of his interactions at this point, be they with males or females, are sexual in any way. He just hasn’t developed like that yet. He’s a baby. He likes drooling on shit and slapping shit and putting shit in his mouth (hey, that sounds like the beginnings of GREAT sex, actually!) but he’s not doing anything sexual at any time…I’m sure that develops soon, but you know, little boys’ balls aren’t even where they’re supposed to be yet, uh, and so forth. Whatever, this is not the point.
The point is, that when it comes to DNA coding and the idea that a preference is wired into you, or a proclivity, like my example yesterday of being bipolar, or liking spinach, the theory I was talking about said it usually needed a trigger to come out. that could be anything, and it could happen when you’re a baby or when you’re old or maybe never. In the case of sexuality, I’d posit that everyone is coded in a certain way at birth, but they probably have no interest in that shit for a while (much like we don’t have any interest in courtroom television until we become like seventy five) and when they do, it just takes a trigger to launch their own, already coded preference. Hmmmm…What do you think a trigger would be that would launch gayness, or straightness? Maybe a dick, or a pussy or something? Maybe a good looking person who you’re attracted to who awakens in you the idea that you have a sexual personality? I mean, to put it another way, NONONONONONONONONNONONONONONONNONONONO there’s no fucking evidence in this that points to the retarded conclusion that nurture brings about sexuality. Man, all you need is a trigger. Here’s the thing, at this crucial time, when you’re awakening sexually, you see an attractive girl (to you…okay. Subjectivity aside), on TV, at the pool, on the bus, at school---do you want to (whatever is the most primordial, infantile version of) fuck her? Yes? Are you a female? Then you’re gay. Are you a male? Then you’re straight. Some combo? You’re some combo. That’s not nature versus nurture, that’s an empirical trigger unleashing a DNA encoded predisposition, which is exactly what I was talking about before.
In a word, if you think that anyone would, in the kind of dumb, backwards world we live in, CHOOSE to be in a situation where they’re persecuted, killed, systematically denied basic liberties and made fun of for being catty and fey (or burly and cheap, depending) just because of who they want to bang, you’re fucking nuts. There you go. That’s my sexuality/genetics class for the day. Class dismissed. Get out there and live! It’s gay day somewhere people. Probably on Halstead, actually. See you at the manhole.


eugene herbert wallis said...

i'vr got to disagree with you, im a biology student and from what i understand people can't really be genetically predisposed to being gay.
To sum up basic genetics the parents give one gene each of theirs to their kid and whichever one is the 'stronger' one is what the kid does. A gene that causes ppl to be gay isn't gonna be passed on cos you need to be hetero to have kids. So except from people who are hiding being gay then the gene that triggers people being gay isnt going to passed on. This will make it the 'weaker' gene because it's not beneficial to human survival (cos of not giving offspring) so the straight version of the gene will over power it.
I think i should point out this isn't an anti gay rant and i may not have explained everything in enough detail but gimme a break im still drunk, good article tho

Taylor said...

It's rad that you're stoked for whoever your kid is attracted to, regardless of his orientation. I live in Oklahoma, and I have definitely seen a fair share of my friends feel all types of different ways about that, but it really gets to me when people are like, "MY KID BETTER NOT BE GAY." that's a huge run-on. fuck it.

Anonymous said...

If your kid isn't doing anything sexual yet, he'll start grabbing his dick 24/7 soon. Or maybe my second cousin is just showing signs of growing up to be a chronic masturbater.

Jayzilla said...

Still using the perfect push-up?

kylewagoner said...

I've got to disagree with Eugene because my dad is gay and I exist, so his argument obviously has a flaw. Amen.

KRcleveland said...

ok, i have to disagree with mr. biology. sexuality is not determinded by dominant and recessive genes like brown and blue eyes and trying to make it that simple is humorous at best. Are you saying that genetic predispositions to mental disorders are the same and that a mother or father MUST have the dominant gene of say schizophrenia?! If it's dominant, and going by what you said that would mean every person with schizophrenia had a parent not only with the genetic marker but that also had the full blown disorder. While in some cases this can be true, it is not the always the case. There have been studies of identical twins both with a genetic marker found in adult homosexuals. The concordance rate between these twins wasa only about 30%. Both have the same parents, same upbringing and same genetic makeup, one just had a "trigger" and the other didn't. In the case of sexuality it's nature AND nurture. its far too complex to simplify it by dominant and recessive genes and heterosexual parents...maybe take a sexuality class? =)

Manny Los Gatos said...

Bad Sandwich Ts. I only made 2 and I don't plan on making any more. 90% of the proceeds go to charity. Check it.

Tyler J. Bernard said...

Eugene, sorry, but you're complete mistaken. According to most studies, the extent to which one is heterosexual or homosexual is most likely determined by differences in brain structure and exposure to hormone levels in the womb. You should tell your instructor at the adult learning annex where you study biology to update his/her references.

Scott said...

Let me preface this by saying that I am both a neuroscience graduate student and Larry Arms/Falcon/Broadways/Slapstick aficionado. KR and Tyler are on the right track. While this is still a controversial subject scientific research is focused on neuroanatomy, endocrinology (hormones), genetics, and the interactions of genetics, biology, and environment.
Gender identity, sexual orientation, and transexualism are most likely affected by complex interactions of the genetics and in utero environment (hormones, cortisol, birth itself) and appear to be highly correlated to so-called 'sexually dimorphic' brain regions (including areas of the hypothalamus). Ok, so enough of the science speak. If you want a decent short and readable review, check out this article-
and for added fun, the author's name is Dick Swaab. Bonus.

Candice said...

enough with the science talk i get enough of that at school.

i miss the old days when we'd talk about felching and docking.

Joshua said...

wow, eugene herbert wallis, just wow. high school biology, punnett squares and dominant/recessive genes do not have anything to do with gender or sexual identity. not to mention that your assertations dont factor in the fact that gay people can have hetero sex and create a child.

you should be researching and understanding the topic. you really dont grasp the subject at all. the point of studying a subject is not to blindly believe what a certain professor tells you using a certain text.

you should really consider a change of major, like dropping out and working somewhere that you are not required to think. ever. cause youre thinking is uneducated.

Ryan said...

Are you having a break down Brendan?

Some Young Guy said...

i don't think people are genetically predisposed to being gay OR straight. i think at some point in history, same sex fuckinz became "sinful" or whatever, maybe because some asshole was like "you should only fuck for making babies!"

i bet if someone had no outside influence regarding sex, by the time they were a teenager they'd fuck anything they could.

don't you think it's possible that EVERYONE is capable of developing a taste for wieners/clams at some point? i'm not saying you can choose what you like but don't you think experience and your upbringing and stuff like that can count for any of it?

that being said, just because you're not born gay doesn't mean you can help it. and FURTHERMORE, even if it WAS a choice, what's the big fuckin deal? let em be gay.

Suzanne said...

I totally remember having a crush on he-man when I was like, 5 or 6.. And vaguely remember some other cartoon character before that that I thought was quite cool.

And then after he-man, there was a british tv series about robin hood, and he was *fine*.

I was really upset when they replaced the hot one Robin with Sean Connery's son, Jason. He was nowhere near as hot.

Anyway. Maybe He-Man's the reason I'm straight, according to your trigger theory :p

Eric said...

I don't know shit about genetics or whether or not sexual preference has anything to do with it. But, for the sake of my argument, let's say that genetics DOES has something to do with it.

Eugene's point was that you wouldn't be able to get a "gay gene" from two heterosexual parents. Well, what if it's not a "gay gene" or "straight gene," but rather an "I-love-cock" gene or "I-love-vaj" gene. If you're a dude and your mom's "I-love-cock" gene is dominant to whatever your dad gives you, then you're gay.

I don't know, that's how I always thought of it growing up. I have no idea what I'm talking about though.

Blake said...

"What do gay horses eat?"