I write this on the basis of a little experience, a little reading,
and no formal training.  While I make no claim to an expert opinion,
and although pretty much everyone with an opinion will disagree in
part and many will disagree substantially, I offer this as a hopeful
starting point in resolving queer issues which divide us.  


Ideas frequently encountered include those which suggest that queers
are sick and deviant, as well as those which suggest that queers have
been that way as long as they can remember, indeed, they were born
that way.  The short answers, as I see them, are Yes and No. 

 
I suggest that queerness is not an innate trait, but rather one created
in early childhood as a result of a Great Hurt based typically in
patriarchal violence and/or abuse.  Apparently it entails some sort
of defensive response perhaps for both the child and the species: by and
large, queerness does mitigate against proliferation of the perp's genes.
We perceive our queerness as having existed as long as we can remember
due to its early inception, and perhaps significantly through repression
or loss of memory of very early events.  The child is broken, and often
does not know why.  Remembered events may have no direct or apparent
connection with the violence or abuse, hindering understanding.  I think
it noteworthy that when Catholic bishops undertook a position on
homosexuality, African bishops entered the discussion with a sense that
it was a white man's affliction brought to Africa and not indigenous.

 
Perhaps more outlandishly, I suggest that orientation is determined even
later in life through imprinting.  While I have been queer as long as I
remember, I had no sense of orientation until I was ten, and can now
identify specific events in acquiring my orientation.  This is not to
suggest that orientation is pliable, for imprinting is durable.


Queerness is an indictment of violence, abuse, and patriarchy - of man's
inhumanity to women and children.  Each queer person represents a
separate count of that indictment; each homophobic act a defense; each
homophobic killing a coverup and an obstruction of justice; each
homophobic assault a revisitation of the target's initial abuse, and
therefore by its nature aggravated.
 

Alice Walker has written of a remarkable man named Samuel Zan whom
she met in Africa while attending a conference devoted toward ending
the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM).  He was born during
what Walker suggests was an 'impossibly painful' labor and quotes
Zan as saying that his tribal name means 'You Have All Seen' (the
complications caused by the practice of FGM).  He adds, "Implicit
is the question, 'What are you going to do about it?'"  What queer
people need from others is not condemnation, but healing and wholeness:
they need caring and kindness and every human quality which is good
and excellent.  Whenever you see a queer person, consider that
You Have All Seen the complications caused by the practice of
violence, abuse, and patriarchy.  Implicit is the question, 'What
are you going to do about it?'

48 responses total.

Yikes!

While I agree with your urgency to do away with cruelty and abuse toward
everyone, women and children included, I think your theory is way too
simplistic to bear much resemblance to the truth.

Every species has an incidence of homoerotic behavior.  Some have a higher
percentage than the human norm of 10% of the population, some have a lower
incidence.  I think any claims that homosexuality was "imported" to a place
by invaders/visitors are completely political and bespeak not the literal
truth but the prevalence of homophobia.

I wouldn't take the abuse standpoint on this.  I have quite a few
gay/bi (I HATE the word "queer") friends who had wonderful
childhoods.  Often, it was their parents' open-mindedness and
unconditional love that led them to appreciate men and women
equally.

        Many species have an instance of homoSEXUAL behaviour, but it's going
a little further to imply that they have homoerotic behaviour, because the
implicit assumption is that it is sexual or erotic - it's a bit of a stretch
to say that the mating behaviour used to establish dominance among pack dogs,
for instance, is the same thing as human male homosexuality.

        Now there is a fairly substantial amount of evidence that does suggest
sexuality is imprinted.  This is a very threatening idea to some, especially
those who defend their sexualty by saying it's "born" or genetically
influenced.  But the idea's truth is not related to whether or not it is
politically controversial or offensive.

"patriarchal violence"? *gag* there's a phrase from someone who's spent too
much time in the Militant Feminist Reading Room.

Humans are violent, both males AND females. 

That said, I've said before and reiterate my opinion that 90%+ of humans are
born bisexual and develop their orientation through imprinting, exposure,
trauma, and (to a greater extent than most people would freely admit) choice.
The remaining percent, less than 10% (if they exist at all), are born gay or
straight (mostly gay, IMHO).

        That's not necessarily true, about "patriarchal violence".  It's not
an innately male trait, any more than a deeper voice, but our culture is both
patriarchal and violent, and these qualities serve to identify it and 
distinguish it from others;  many other patriarchal cultures are also violent
in nature.  It's not so far-fetched an association between attempts to 
control sexuality by subjugating women and attempts to control others through
violence.

Exactly.  I claim to be queer, but my father has been anything but violent.
In fact, my sister, who identifies herself as lesbian, says he's the most
feminine (not effeminate) man she knows.  He's tender and possesses very deep
feelings.

The theory of "patriarchal violence" is an odd one.  Two generations back on
my father's side, the family theory about the presence of gay men in the
family tree was that the mother was insufferably strict; my great-grandfather
was gone most of the time for church duties as he was one of the general
authorities.  Incidentally, almost all of the sons of one of his daughters
(and the *only* child still living) are gay.

I tend to agree with Paul, based on the experiences I've seen.  A majority
of people probably *are* bisexual, but because they tend to lean toward one
particular sex, they may identify themselves as gay or straight.  I would
definitely agree that trauma factors heavily.  I have noted at least one case
where rape influenced a woman to identify herself as lesbian instead of bi.
Exposure?  Probably.  The subcultures created by the community are attractive,
and they can give a sense of belonging.  In our day and age, they're more
accepted, too, but just enough out of the mainstream to be a freedom from
traditional gender roles.

As far as imprinting, would someone kindly explain the theory to me in
layman's terms?  I didn't understand it the last ten times.

Anyway, the "patriarchal violence" thoery does bisexuals a great disservice.
It suggests sexuality is conditioned by estrangement of gender identification,
or is otherwise a negative reaction towards relations between the sexes.  Most
of us bis have great faith in both sexes although the community faces
persecution, patriarchial society may be violently enforced, or whatever. 
The U.S. is already very progressive in women's rights issues, more so than
the rest of the world, and perhaps it would do us good to take a fresh look.

Actually, echnically speaking, we're *not* a patriarchal society.

My definition (which matches the dictionary): A patriarchal society is
focussed on a clear hierarchy of male elders, where leaders are identified
as "father figures." While the United States may once have been a patriarchy
(hence the reference to Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin as "the Founding
Fathers"), this is no longer the case. Clinton, for example, is hardly seen
by most people as a "father," nor are most politicians seen as patriarchs.

Val's definition (which matches anthropological perspectives): A patriarchal
society is one in which the vast majority of legal rights -- voting,
inheritance, holding positions of social importance, and so on -- are the
exclusive purview of males. Likewise, while that was true when the United
States was first formed, it's no longer true, not by a long shot.

It's not the case that all societies can be classified as either patriarchal
and matriarchal.

That said, the claim that "the majority of male-dominated societies are
violent, and we know of few violent female-dominated societies, therefore
male-dominated socieities are more violent than female-dominated societies"
is misguiding. We only know of a few female-dominated societies at all... most
of our knowledge is based on male-dominated societies over all. We could just
as truthfully make the claim "We know of mornon-violent male-dominated
societies than we do non-violent female-dominated societies, so therefroe we
know that male-dominated societies are less violent."

One MIGHT make the claim that males are more violent than females based on
the fact that they're always dominating societies, but I'd take umbrage with
that, too (but I won't go into that now).

As far as the divorce and child-raising system, our society is matriarchal.
Women are also the ones expected to care for aging parents, wherease in China
it is the men's responsibility.  I notice also a matrilocal pattern in that
women remain in the same house and men move in and out, the children remain
with the women.  And a majority of the college students now seem to be female,
a reversal of the earlier pattern.

        Paul, entirely correct.  I wasn't trying to encompass the current state
of our society, and was overgeneralizing.

        Keesan, I've never heard that women are the ones expected to take care
of their elderly relatives;  insofar as my own experience goes, it would seem
to be a genderless responsibility.  Where've you seen this to be true?

Taking care of elderly relatives always seemed to me to be the responsibility
of all their immediate children, at least in my experience.

Your other comments, Sindi, I think, have to do with the expectations of
independence placed on men, but I could be wrong.  It doesn't seem socially
acceptable for men to stay at home with momma, and the lure of a job seems
to take faster hold than completing a higher education.

This sounds like one for the sociologists to answer.

Hmmm, in the issue of eldercare, in my family it seems to fall to the daugters
in law.  Then again, neither my mother-in-law nor my mother had any daughters,
so this sort of supports the "it's the daughter's job".  When there isn't a
daughter it falls to the nearest available facsimile.

See, #10 contradicts itself:
"Taking care of elderly relatives always seemed to me to be the responsibility
of all their immediate children"
"It doesn't seem socially acceptable for men to stay at home with momma."

My experience matches Keesan's, that if an elderly adult has children of both
genders, then it's more likely to fall to the daughters, not the sons, to take
care of them. There are other mitigating circumstances, of course, one of
which is proximity. My dad and step-mother have, between them, five children,
but if something were to happen to them right now, two of those children --
me and my step-sister -- would be the most obliged to take care of them,
because we're the closest in proximity (they live in Monroe, which is about
an hour south of where I live). I think this plays a contributing role in the
gender thing, in that women may tend to not move as far away from home as men.

On the divorce/child-rearing/housing issue, the courts do tend to strongly
favor women as far as custody and housing goes. My parents were an exception,
but that was *only* because, as a minister, my father didn't own the house
we lived in, and therefore my mother couldn't get it in the settlement.

Jim's sister took care of his mother and he helped out by moving there one
month a year, but his sister was closest geographically.  My mother, who was
sick herself, took care of her aged father even though he lived much closer
to his son, who was not sick.  When she could not handle the physical
responsibilities, she put him into a nursing home near her house and the three
children shared the expenses.  When my mother got too sick my brother arranged
a nearby nursing home for her (they both lived in the same city) but I was
the one who called every day.  There seem to be several factors involved, but
at least in my family the daughters are expected to care for the parents.

To jump back to the original conversation...

Why do people think that the ideas in #0 do such a great disservice to queers?
I disagree with them too, for reasons that are pretty much repeats of what
people have already said. But...
The standard conversation when this sort of theory comes up seems to go
something like this:
"You're queer because you were abused"
"That's insulting! I was born this way, it's perfectly natural,a nd there's
nothing wrong with it"

Why does 'having been born that way' make homosexuality more legitimate? What
would be wrong with saying "I don't care why I'm queer, whether it comes from
my genes or from abuse or from my parents' behavior; I like being this way,
and I don't see any reason I should change regardless." ?

        I think that part of it comes from older theories about the origin of
homosexuality, when it was treated as a psychological disorder, and therefore
it was assumed that there was a traumatic experience which caused the
disorder.  Therefore any assertion that sexuality (and it only seems to coem
up in the context of discussing homosexuality) may be imprinted brings up the
old theories as well of "x happened to you when you were young, and so you're
gay."  The critical difference is that you also say "x happened to you when
you were young, and so you're straight." 

        The theory of imprinting is also contradictory to a *policitcal*
statement that homosexuality is born, which is commonly used as an argument
when suing for gay rights.  It is true that sexuality can be reimprinted, but
again the critical difference is in realising that heterosexuality is
imprinted behaviour, too, and that if heterosexuality is valid, though
imprinted, than homosexuality is valid, though imprinted.  It is an
intellectual argument, though, not an emotional one, unlike "I was born this
way and I can't change", which cannot be argued with on an emotional level.

The standard answer to that that I'm familiar with is that the "Moral Right",
among others, feel that if an "immoral" behavior is the result of environment,
not genetics, then it can be changed to a "moral" behavior by changing the
environment or through "enlightenment."

In my opinion, I agree that it shouldn't matter what the origins of
orientation are. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that
you'll go to Hell for practicing it, then you probably won't practice it
(unless, of course, you *want* to go to Hell). There are gay clergy, but most
major Christian religions prohibit *actively* gay clergy... that is, a person
can *be* gay, they just can't have gay relationships. Some of these religions
prohibit by loophole as well as be overt statement: Clergy can't have sexual
relations with anyone they're not married to, and clergy can only marry people
of the opposite gender (when they're allowed to marry at all).

As for non-clergy, though, the same would hold. If you believe that alcohol
consumption is a sin, it doesn't matter whether alcoholism is environmental
or genetic: you won't consume it regardless.

The other aspect of this issue is that the EEOC's list of "protected"
characteristics are primarily things you can do nothing about... gender and
race are things you're born with, and disabilities can rarely be reversed.
So, the Queer Forces feel, if orientation can be shown to be genetic, the EEOC
will be obliged to put it on the list.

I disagree with this for two reasons. First, I don't agree with the current
scope of the EEOC. I believe that the government has a right to make policies
concerning employee characteristics in one venue only: the government; I don't
believe it has a right to tell private companies who they can and can't hire.
So by emphasizing this as a motivation for demonstrating the genetic nature
of orientation, the queer community puts me off.

Second, there ARE some "choice" characteristics, the most prominent one being
religion. My own religion says that it's all right to be queer, and it's all
right to carry on intimate relationships with other consenting adults:
"So long as it harms none, do as you will."
"All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals."
So, as far as I'm concerned, my bisexuality is already protected by the
EEOC... it falls under "religion."

Finally, the issue blurs the choice/fate distinction and the nature/nurture
distinction. The assumption is that "nature" characteristics are unchangeable,
and "nurture" characteristics are the result of conscious choice. Both of
these assumptions are false. "Nature" characteristics can be overcome to a
certain extent... some birth defects can be fixed through surgery and physical
therapy, for instance. For that matter, external gender can even be changed.
"Nurture" characteristics aren't always the result of choice. Some (mental)
therapists are of the opinion that mental illness that is the result of
physiological problems -- nature, more or less -- is sometimes easier to
counteract (through drugs, usually, or other physical therapies) than mental
illness that is the result of trauma during upbringing (particualrly
"personality disorders").

Consolidated (in "Butyric Acid") sings:
"If you don't want a Nazi in your house, don't let one.
 You don't know a Fundamentalist 'til you've met one.
 Once you've memorized your civil rights, don't forget them.
 If you don't like abortion, don't get one."

That's my opinion on any consentual behavior: If you don't like, don't do it.
This thing about firing people, or damning people, or whatever, just because
they do something you don't like when they're not around you is absurd, and
it shouldn't matter *why* they do whatever it is they do... be it sex, drugs,
porn, swearing, drinking, and so on. If it doesn't affect work, doesn't
endanger innocents, and is entirely consentual, what does it matter?

The mind is part of the body, and genes are part of the environment.

        Well, that's not entirely unreasonable.  If you're preaching a 
religious belief that says homosexuality, in practice at least, is a sin, then
you shouldn't practice homosexuality, should you?

Genes are not part of the environment. What is meant by "the environment" are
factors that operate external to the entity: nutrition, social interaction,
etc. Genes are internal to the entity.

You would get an argument that the mind is part of the body, but since I don't
see the immediate relevance anyway, I won't go into it.

Maternal genes are part of the environment, they affect the hormones to which
a fetus is exposed and therefore affect the fetus's sexual development, which
includes the brain/mind.

        Eh?  The phenotype of the mother does have a genetic and an environ-
mental influence.  But there's little evidence of a genetic factor in 
sexual development.

Well, theoretically I can imagine a situation like the one being described:
Suppose there's a gene that regulates the acidity of a person's body - I have
no idea if such a gene exists or not, mind you. If the mother's copy of that
gene is out of whack, the environment in the womb will be more acidic, and
that could well affect a fetus' development. Similar situations are
imaginable - thought maby not possible, I'm really not sure - with hormones
or other chemicals that could well influence sexual development. 

(what exactly does 'phenotype' mean anyway? I'd thought it meant 'the parts
of someone's form that aren't caused by genetics', but you seem to be using
it to mean something else in #21)

        The phenotype is, in essence, the physical manifestation of the
genetic code, which is not the same as the genetic code - say for eyes,
wherein:

        b = blue (recessive)
        B = brown (dominant)

        a mother's genotype might be Bb (one gene for each, and therefore
an equal likelihood of passing on either) but her phenotype is "brown eyes",
and she physically appears the same as a BB-gened person (in most cases;
sometimes recessive genes can influence early development.

        It makes a real difference when you're talking about recessive genes.

Ah, I get it. THanks.

All the same, Ori, in the case you cite, I wouldn't personally say that the
fetus's mother's genes had an external effect, I'd say the acidity had an
effect.

I mean, if we're going to say things like this, we might as well say that,
oh, anxiety bout being raped is genetic because rapists are predominantly male
and gender is genetically determined; since the external influence (maleness)
is genetically determined, genetics have an external effect? That's REAAAAAALY
stretching it to make a point that's not wirth making.

I think the example you give is stretching it even more than the example I
gave, but.... it's probably not worth arguing about. In any case, the point
may well just be that it's hard to pin down exactly what's genetic and what
isn't.

the point is, by "genetic" is generally meant those things that are the direct
result of the individual's *own* genetic coding, not the environmental effects
from *others'* genetic coding.

        I don't see where this is goin'.

Neither do I.
Somebody was arguing my distinction between genetic and external forces on
the grounds that some genetic forces are external. I was refuting.
That's all.

        And I added that the phenotype of some genes have an external 
influence, not the genes themselves.  But the rest has me completely lost.

I would like to believe that sexual orientation is genetic, but unfortunately
there is no evidence to support my belief other than blind faith-- faith that
when the GNOME project is completed, that a gene will be isolated. For now,
however, it is just a belief. It's interesting to me how many different
opinions there are regarding the origin of homosexuality. It has become like
one of those great philosophical questions like "Is the mind separate from
the body". The fact is that nobody really knows shit at this point. A lot of
theorists attempt to relate sexual orientation to early experiences or
relations with the parents. In short, there is no evidence for them. Study
after study has failed to find any differences in home environment, early
experiences, or relations with parents that distinguish people of different
sexual orientations (Motivation: the Organization of Action-- Dr. Douglas E.
Mook). Likewise, there is no evidence to support other theories, including
the "brain theory", "blood chemistry theory", or the "imprinted theory"
(althought it's a pretty interesting one, I must admit). In lab rats, sexual
behavior and orientation can be manipulated (in both sexes). For instance,
a castrated male rat at birth who has been given injections of estrogen will
demonstrate normal female rat behavior associated with mating (the lardosis
reflex). Likewise, a female rat injected with testerone will attempt to mount
other female rats. Unfortuantely, human sexual behavior isn't this easy to
measure and quantify (and the attempt to perform the same type of experients
would be considered highly unethical, not to mention illegal). We don't really
know if sex hormones have anything to do with human sexual orientation, but
many scientists seem to think they're on the right track. In other words, they
don't really know shit about it either. The point that I'm trying to make is
that we can argue about it until the cows come home, but just like ontological
physicalism v. substance dualism, we will probably never know. Furthermore,
who cares. Why not ask, what causes heterosexuality? 

        Heterosexuality is a strongly evolutionarily-selected behavior;  it
has all the weight of natural selection that created sexual reproduction in
the first place behind it.

        I think the origins of homosexuality lie in the re-definition of sexual
behavior in mammals.  Our closest primate relatives use sexuality for
everything;  establishing dominance and submission, expressing friendship or
bonding, and reproduction.  Humans have clearly demonstrated that their
sexuality is about more than reproduction;  doesn't it follow that the
reproductionally advantageous gender relationship is no longer so significant?

        I don't believe that there is a lack of studies suggesting a strong
relationship between imprinting and sexuality;  but the subject is taboo, and
imprinting in humans is poorly understood.  I'll research this further and
post some additional references.

        But in a day and age where one's label is so politically influenced
- take the example of Clive Barker, who winds up according to the Kinsey scale
anywhere between three and five, and admits enjoyable romantic relationships
with women, but defines himself as gay because of the political ramifications
(onliners have admitted to the same behaviour) - how can this be genetically
influenced?  Or is there a consensus that a politically gay but emotionally
bisexual person is simply a non-practicing bisexual?

What Clive Barker chooses to call himself is his own business. I've known gay
men who have had a few sexual experiences with women, and I've known straight
men who have had a gay experience. There are lots of people who have
experimented with gay sex who aren't gay. Furthermore, gay, straight, hetero,
queer, whatever...they're all just labels anyway (I prefer to call myself a
person rather than just gay. Who I sleep with doesn't totally define who I
am. If Clive Barker finds pride and personal power in calling himself gay even
though he might be "technically gay", I submite once again, is his business.
Furthermore, using an individual case study neither proves or disaproves an
argument, especially in this case. It only demonstrates that some people
prefer one label over another. As far as evolution is concerned, yes it's true
that nature selects certain traits to survive over others, but isn't it
interesting how the population of gays & lesbians just seem to get bigger (or
at least more out). Could it mean that nature selected homosexuality as a
desirable trait. The fate's know it's been around since the begining our
civilization. As far as this whole imprinting thing goes, I must admit that
you're the only person I've ever heard say a single thing about it (I seem
to recall having a similar conversation with you in the past). I don't thin
there's really a conspiracy to keep it under wraps because it's politically
incorrect. More than likely, the very few people who have heard of it take
it about as serious as I do; although I must admit, I do find the idea that
the theory proposes to be bit silly in that it basically compares
homosexuality to human sexual imprinting as when a duck accidentally imprinted
to a rubber ball because that's the first thing they see. If the theory were
actually true, I might think that it's a bit funny.

        No, an individual case statement does not prove or disprove a general
case, but it can illustrate problems or potential problems with a line of
thinking.  In this case, the example of an individual who considers himself
of one orientation for political reasons (clearly not genetic) illustrates
the problem of differentiating between people who have chosen their
orientation-label and those who have never had a choice.

        There's quite a weight of evidence behind imprinting, though it's more
complicated than just the kind of mother-imprinting you see in earlier avians
(we're more closely related to the dinosaurs).  Moreover, there are recognized
techniques for re-imprinting people who are unhappy with their current
sexuality viz. Milton Erickson and Paul Watzlowack (_Uncommon Therapy_ by
Haley and _Munchausen's Pigtail_ by Watzlowack).  I find the latter evidence
compelling - unless the therapists in question are utterly incompetent and
deliberately obscuring facts as well, human sexuality is malleable, and
therefore may be subject to genetic factors, but cannot be solely genetically
determined.

        But it is difficult to discuss such things when people have so much
invested in their personal definitions, and personal attitudes about just how
much society and science should look into human relationships.  That's the
kind of "cover-up" I'm talking about;  there's no payoff in sexuality research
which doesn't really confirm what people want to hear, especially when it
offends just about everyone.

There are a few known cases in which people were brought up in the wild or
in isolated social conditions. For example, the famous Wild Boy of early 19th
century France. One day he wandered into a French village. His behavior was
animalistic in every sense, naked except for a shirt, could not speak any
language, and completely unable to relate to anyone around him. In other
words, he was brought up in the wild.  Many, many efforts were made to "teach
him manners" and teach him language, but the wild boy was never completely
housebroken, and never learned to speak.  An adolescent in his mid-teens, he
seemed to be very curious in the opposite sex. He would approach a woman and
try to touch her (sometimes he would try to touch their breasts, their legs,
etc...) As an experiment, Jean-Marc Itard, his trainer for lack of a better
word, wanted to see what the boy would do is the female was complacent. The
result was that the wild boy had no idea what to do, how to act on his own
feelings, or how to express them. Sometimes the boy would get downright
irritable. It was obvious to everyone that the boy was suffering from some
sort of sexual frustration. Now I ask, if the boy was raised completely in
the wild, with no contact with other humans until he was in his mid-teens and
already beginning sexual maturity, who on earth did he learn sexual desire
from? If the boy experienced sexual imprinting, from whom did he learn it from
. Logic would indicate that he would probably learn sexual behavior or be
imprinted by animals in the wild.  In which case, the boy should have walked
up and sniffed the girl's crotch or some other animal courting behavior. In
all of the wild boy's life, and he lived to about 37 or so, but he never
learned how to act on his desires. Whenever he was near a woman, he would go
through the same ritual, become aroused by trying to touch her, and then shift
his mood entirely.

        It is an interesting case;  I'm not sure if a wolf pack would adopt
a human child as one of it's own, given our poor hunting skills and relative
lack of mobility, but let's assume for argument's sake that this was the case,
and that the young child did imprint based on what it was exposed to in the
wild.  

        Now mind you, imprinting is partially biological - there are very
specific patterns that the imprint must fit, and that many apects of sexual
behavior are built upon the imprint, but are learned behaviour, which
underscores why everything from vanilla to fetish sexuality shares some of
the same rituals.  Let's further assume for argument's sake that the wolf-pack
members were sufficiently close to the biological requirements for imprinting,
and that the child learned what he could from the environment.

        How would such a child behave?  A human female is not strictly
analogous to a wolf female;  one of the major differences outside of the
appearance the child would have imprinted on being completely off, is that
human females do not have a specific heat or estrus season;  wolf mating
rituals are also completely different, involving behaviour human females
(well, most that I've seen) don't emulate.  I'm by no means an expert on wolf
sexuality, but it's clear that the way we do it ain't the way they do it, and
that the requisite mating signals (both physical and somatic) would be
missing.

        Such a child might behave, making an analogy, the same way a human
child who'd never seen a wolf - or heard of such a thing - might upon first
encountering a she-wolf.  With curiosity and trepidation, but no real instinct
to mate!

We know by many examples that imprinting can occur cross-species. For example,
a baby duck can imprint to a human. Animals can learn some human behavior
and behaviors normally associated with other species (anyone who disputes this
may be introduced to my cat whom I swear has both human and canine genes. The
damn cat can fetch). It is also true that humans can learn behavior from other
species, as well as mechanical objects (such as the famous case the Crane baby
who, because he was completely isolated from nearly all communication with
humans, learned to speak a bizarre "crane" language, which he learned from
a crane that operated outside of his bedroom window everyday of his life.)
We know two things, however. 1) language is critical in development 2) If you
don't learn at the necessary stage of development, you never will. While most
learning in humans is passive, meaning behavior that is not expressly taught
but learned by means of observation and repeated exposure. Most of our
behavior, however, is expressly taught to us. For examples, cultural values,
gender specific behavior, mannerisms, and yes sexual behavior (as it is proper
for your gender). However, if you do not know the language of your cultural,
you can't be taught these behaviors. Even more, if you never learned language
at the critical stage of development when you should have, you can NEVER be
taught these things. Since Victor, the name of the wild boy, could not be
taught language (at least any language that we're familar with) he could not
be taught the cultural values and behaviors of humans. Employing this logic
one step further, Victor could not be taught sexual behavior. However, even
though he could not be taught sexual behavior, he was sexually orientated to
women. I submit that Victor was a heterosexual despite the fact that he never
learned any behavior associated with being heterosexual and without ever
having been "imprinted", at least in any way we could fathom. Many scholars
have speculated that if Victor's trainers were somehhow able to learn the
language that he spoke, however bizarre it may have seemed, then Victor may
have been able to learn functional human behavior. I would like to express
that I do not imply that because Victor was naturally heterosexual that we're
all naturally heterosexual in the wild. Victor could just as easily be
homosexual and would have experienced the same thing, an inability to related
or understand his natural feelings.

        I didn't debate that the range of many imprints was sufficiently broad
as to be able to encompass other species or even (somewhat) inanimate objects.
Clearly that's the case with very early imprinting, such as some mammals and
avians do towards a mother.

        Language is another good example of imprinting, however.  Although
there are about six hundred basic phonemes (E. Hall) that we can learn, we
choose those which are present in our early stages of development, and for
the most part forget about the rest.  People who are exposed to phonemes later
in life that they have not heard often have difficulty concieving of the words
build upon them or the difference between similar sounding phonemes (the
infamous "l" versus "r" distinction with Japanese speakers, and the English
speaker's inability to comprehend the Hindi "dh").

        Since our case subject didn't consummate a relationship, or even
seem to be more than curious, I'm wondering how you've labelled him a
heterosexual ... any more than he might be gay or bisexual.  Was the subject
raised at a time and place where his sexual preference could be objectively
evaluated?

I was thinking the same, actually.  

Another possibility - the Wild Boy had been breast-fed back in the day?  It's
possible that that particular interest had no sexual basis...

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss