|
August 25, 2005
What turns you on might tee me off
More on conversion. I realized that I barely scratched the surface of the "conversion" issue, as the dynamics of the phenomenon are everywhere. Responding to Eugene Volokh's post (about whether straight-to-gay conversion is a myth), Orin Kerr brings up that exquisite perversion known as "golf": If I understand Eugene's response, his argument boils down to the belief that people will try to convert others to do whatever they themselves really enjoy doing. For example, if I get a great deal of pleasure from golf, then I will encourage others to try it. If I meet someone who mentions that he is thinking of picking up golf, then I will try to "convert" him to be a golfer. (It's human psychology, the argument would run: if golfing makes me happy, then why wouldn't I attempt to get others to try it?)There are a lot of other analogies which could be made, and I already discussed religion. How about drug addiction? Many people would argue that drug addicts "convert" each other, but again, if someone is "looking to be converted" (how most drug addicts get started, in my experience) is this not an attempt to blame Person A for the conduct of Person B? Is the drug "pusher" responsible for the addiction of his customer? If so, is the bartender then responsible for the alcoholism of his? Many years ago, Art Linkletter's daughter committed suicide by jumping out a sixth story window. Alleging she had taken LSD before her death, Art Linkletter blamed the Beatles as the "leading missionaries" of an LSD culture which had made her want to take LSD. Assuming that the Beatles glorified the drug as psychedelic "missionaries," can they be said to have "converted" her? Are missionaries responsible for the subsequent conduct of their "followers"? Even people they never met? I don't think so. To maintain otherwise would negate free will. If the Beatles promoted an unhealthy lifestyle and others followed it, so be it. That is no more the Beatles' fault than obesity is the fault of McDonalds and Burger King. Even assuming direct, one-on-one proselytizing, I still don't think people are really converted by others, barring duress. They convert themselves. (With homosexuality, there's arguably less of a conversion issue -- at least if we assume sexual desire is more deeply rooted than an attraction to fatty foods.) Interestingly enough, last year, I related my own experience with a "pusher" of golf, and I think it bears repeating: Well after my adolescent crisis had passed (but before my midlife crisis had been fully developed), a well-meaning relative honestly believed that I should play golf even though I hated it. He thought that it was socially the right thing to do, that it would advance one's career, and all that morally righteous stuff. But the bottom line for him was that he loved golf! So, he could carry on all he wanted about how golf was good and even virtuous, but the fact remained that it was fun for him, and torture for me. The odd thing is, when I was a kid I noticed that many of the harder working men used to criticize men who enjoyed playing golf as shirkers of their responsibilities. (Like the doctor out whacking a golfball while his patient dies from complications.)The golf analogy is far from perfect, though, because sexuality is far more personal, but there's still the basic question of likes and dislikes, and who is in charge of them. It is my decision what I like, not anyone else's. Someone can show me something, urge me to try it, but whether I try it and like it is up to me, and should not be blamed on someone else. This is not to suggest that Eugene Volokh ever maintained that proselytizers are responsible for the subsequent conduct of those they influence. I think he's just remarking the obvious about a common enough phenomenon. Here's Eugene Volokh's reply to Orin Kerr: The phenomenon that I was describing was not supposed to be shocking or unusual. It's just human nature, which is why I think it's such a plausible hypothesis. What strikes me as being implausible is the claim -- against which I was arguing -- that it's somehow a "myth" that gay and lesbians (not every such person, but many) are interested in converting some people to gay or lesbian behavior. As I pointed out, it's highly unlikely that they're trying to convert heterosexuals generally. But, as I argued, it does seem likely that they're trying to convert the orientationally bisexual but behaviorally heterosexual into at least exploring their homosexual sides: "[T]he [gay rights] movement . . . necessarily, and I suspect intentionally, also helps people who are attracted to both sexes be more willing to explore the homosexual facets of that attraction."Common sense and personal experience suggest to me that what Professor Volokh is talking about here is the phenomenon of gay guys hitting on straight guys. (Or on bisexually inclined men whose homosexuality is still unexplored.) It happens all the time. In fact, there are plenty of gay men who would much rather have sex with straight men than with other gay men (Ah, but the catch is that once they "get" it, they lose what they get, because their partners cease to be "straight.") Hence the word "conversion." But how about the "straight" men? If they were interested in reciprocating, could they truly be said to be "straight" at that point? Then how can they truly be said to have been "converted"? I admit these words are silly, and they fail me. Which means that I cannot make a coherent argument because of an inability to define the undefinable. (As I keep saying, I disagree with the labels.) Would the word "conversion" be used if a straight man hit on a uninterested woman? Even if she was a virgin? How about a lesbian being hit on by a straight man? Would that be an attempted conversion? A "fag hag" hitting on a gay man? I've never heard the word applied in these cases, and I have my doubts about whether it applies anywhere. I am, I admit, resolutely opposed to the notion that Person A can convert Person B in the absence of force or duress, because of free will. Indeed, the word "convert" was first used in the religious sense, and it clearly implies action by someone other than Person B -- and (unless I am mistaken) a lack of fully free choice, because of this external, converting, action: convert (v.)Since we seem to stuck with having to use religious terminology to analyze sexual matters, I guess religious examples are as good as any. Again, my problem with that is that any discussion of religious conversion (and thus, I fear, conversion in general) is hopelessly mired in communitarian notions of Person A being responsible for Person B. Typically, one who converts someone else in the religious sense, not only admits to having responsibility, he wants responsibility! It's communitarian thinking, and I fear it's at the root of the problem -- because it's at the root of the word. I don't think that way, and I know I can't change the minds of people who do. Nor would I want to change their minds, because I'd then be guilty of conversion, and I don't want the responsibility. If you agree with me, it's not my fault. (Interestingly, Augustine blurred the distinction between force and free will with the doctrine of "compel them to come in" -- but that's another, more heretical topic.) posted by Eric on 08.25.05 at 08:52 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2703 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What turns you on might tee me off:
» Conversion from The White Peril 白禍
I tried to get interested in the discussions of potential gay "conversion" at The Volokh Conspiracy and couldn't. I find Eric's I tried to get interested in the discussions of potential gay "conversion" at The Volokh Conspiracy and couldn't. I find Eric's [Read More] Tracked on August 25, 2005 04:46 PM
Comments
Hmmm.... Golf. Always makes me think of Mr. Aykermeyer. This whole "conversion" thing reminds me of some scenario my brother and I once talked about: a dentist who, while you are under his drill, tries to convert you to his religion. I remember my father talking about a dentist who argued poitics (about the Viet Nam War) with him under those circumstances. Kind of hard to answer back. A funny idea. I can picture with ease a dentist, a man's man, trying to convert a good-looking male Tribadentine Catholic worshipper of the Queen of Heaven to the worship of the Son on Man instead. That might be an example of the kind of conversion which Eugene Volokh may be speaking of. Angry Arthur Silber and Julian Sanchez replied to Volokh that the "myth" or Big Lie of the anti-homosexual moral collectivists such as Paul Cameron is that homosexual men or women regularly try to convert or "recruit" 12-year-old boys or girls, which is, of course, demonstrably false. Homosexuals as a whole are trying to convert Western society as a whole from the idea that homosexuality is morally wrong and even should be illegal to the idea that homosexuality is morally right and should be honored as heterosexuality is honored. That much is obvious and, from my point of view, is right. I argue that this can only be accomplished through a deeper religious conversion to the idea that sexuality as such is morally, spiritually, of the highest value, which proceeds from the idea of the self as the highest value, as the image of the Divine. On an individual basis, as you have pointed out numerous times, such classifications as "homosexual", "heterosexual", "bisexual", or even "gynosexual" and "androsexual" are of somewhat limited epistemological value, since no one is attracted to an entire sex but to specific men or women, to a specific (and often very hard to define) type of man or woman. Obviously, a man who "hits on" a woman he sees as attractive is not trying to convert her to anything so general as "heterosexuality", but rather specifically to "heterosexuality" with himself. He most certainly does not want to see her being heterosexual with another man! -- which is why he would far prefer her to be homosexual (gynosexual, Lesbian), preferably with a woman as attractive as herself, than any such a thing. What he wants above all is that she should fall in love with him, which, being a type of religious experience, might well in that sense be called a "conversion". If we are to use the more abstract categories of sexual orientation, then I must mention that I have often thought of it in terms of 4 basic types of men (I will use men here) and what they see: A totally androsexual man: A completely bisexual man: A totally gynosexual man: But -- another gynosexual man: The first three men are motivated by the selfish motive. It is this fourth man, the moral collectivist, who is acting on an unselfish motive or, as Rand would say, on a Kantian premise -- or, as Dawn would say, on an Akhenatonian premise. Taking this fourth man further, imagine that he is able to gain a position of influence, perhaps as a legislator or as a popular television preacher. I will now take three other men, of whatever sexual orientations, but of decidedly differing moral orientations: The first man sees and hears him constantly praised in the media for his unselfish service to the collective, and feels it his duty to admire him, even as he secretly loathes him. The second man wonders how he can survive in a world where such persons can prosper -- and feels fear. The third man observes how this collectivist has betrayed his own self -- and feels contempt. That's how I see it. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 25, 2005 04:55 PM By the way, I must again praise the styles of the titles of your posts! Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 25, 2005 04:57 PM Eric, "Nor would I want to change their minds, because I'd then be guilty of conversion, and I don't want the responsibility. If you agree with me, it's not my fault." You might not be aware that you've got an unusually high moral bar, there. Speaking just for myself, I once tried to "convert" a lesbian women for purely and completely selfish reasons. I wanted her, and I was more than willing to accept responsibility if I was successful. Actually, I don't think I even considered the idea of responsibility. I just wanted her, and wanted her, and wanted her, and that was about the entirety of my thought process. It might be different for gay men, given the difficulties gay men face... But no- I doubt very much that gay 16-25 year-olds are any less relentlessly and stupidly horny than straights are at those ages- most probably don't even worry about the consequences of coversion. I stopped myself from going after married women- I mean that was immediate and the possible consequences were obvious, but the possible consequences of conversion are too many and too ethereal to halt most youngster's hormones, I think. Cheers!
Harkonnendog · August 25, 2005 10:12 PM We know that up to one third of young men (and about as many young women) will experience strong attraction to a same-sex idol during their teenage years. This "crush" or "puppy love" used to be dismissed for what it is - a stage in normal identity formation - and 99.9 percent of these kids grew up to integrate a normal heterosexual identity. But that was in a more innocent, less intensely sexualized age. Through "outreach" and "support" organizations, the gay lobby has actively pursued these vulnerable teens. By incessantly repeating pseudo-scientific "evidence" they have everyone believing that "gays are born that way" - and they use this misinformation to convince these young people that coming out as gay is the way to "be true to themselves". Many of these organizations press these kids into totally inappropriate and premature sexual experimentation - and in some cases, sexual liasons with the peer or adult supervisor of the group. Sex is a powerful - even addicting - experience for a young kid, especially when coupled with emotional attention and the frisson of being "special". When these people hit their 20s and are feeling lonely and unsatisfied by the merry-go-round of gay promiscuity, they are up against a brick wall of "scientific facts" that "everybody knows", with no professional or cultural support for their decision to opt out of gayness. Instead, they are blamed for not making it work, and encouraged to continue in the patterns of self-absorbed victimology that are so rife in our society. This is happening, today, to young people on our high school and college campuses. You can dither about whether it's "conversion" or "indoctrination" - but it's happening. The gay lobby has successfully used victimology and other manipulations to shout down opposition by everyone from parents and teachers to the professional associations in the medical and healing professions. These kids are being fed a pack of lies at a very vulnerable time in their lives. Ben-David · August 29, 2005 08:22 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Conversion can also mean to change, and Volokh seems to me more talking about a desire to change society in such a fashion that will cause (allow?) homosexual behavior to be more common.
He pretty explicity stated that he is talking about a shift in societal views on sexuality being the goal rather than a one on one conversion. Whether this is the right word or not, could probably be argued, but if we say we have converted from a agriculteral economy to an industrial economy (and I have certainly seen the term used this way) then I don't think it wrong to claim that many Homosexuals (as a group) are trying to convert us from a closeted society to an accepting and tolerant one, with one of the goals being to allow people to make choices about homosexual behavior that they would not chose in a closeted society.
What it boils down to, in my view at least, is that Volokhs thoughts are both extremely accurate and relatively trivial.