“Brainwash” continued: Gay/straight

In the episode on Gay/Straight, the contrast between the official Norwegian  and American ideology on gayness is absolute. In Norway it is insisted [see 19:37 and beyond] that it is entirely a matter of free choice; in the United States the gay lobby equally insists that it is entirely biologically pre-determined, even though the same left-wing people in the US insist that intelligence, race, and other things have insignificant genetic component. Go figure.

Again and again, the ideologues declare that the issue in question (the biological basis of anything) has no interest for them, is beside the point, that what matters is the attitude of society or individuals, ignoring and scoffing at any factual basis on which the tolerance could be founded.

The Norwegian ideologues insisted that there were no differences between men and women outside of their reproductive equipment; that there are no differences of reproductive interest that lead to differences of attitude towards one-night stands, for instance. The one left holding the baby must naturally be more conservative in her sexual behaviour. Why this fact of biology should be ignored by the sexual ideologues is a mystery, but the incentive to prevent the question being asked is obvious.

The Norwegian lefties express the underlying feature of all left-wing thought: that all can be re-arranged and transformed. The key to making this change is just change how we talk, as a prelude to changing how we think.

What strikes me most about this series is how precisely it delineates the basic attitudes of leftist ideology, and its glaring contrast with real science, and reality itself.


The series is interesting and provocative. I don’t agree with the criticisms that it is insufficiently inclusive – for one thing, it is television documentary and there are clear time and budget limitations.

However, I do think that the gay/straight exploration was one which could have used a great deal more nuance.

There are a couple of paradigms to this:

1) The ugly puppy – or more correctly, that even ugly puppies need love. Is there any component to the gay preference which is due to “unfitness” in the straight arena? Or vice versa?

After all, there are clear differences in what is considered attractive between different cultures – at least before the ubiquity of mass media.

2) The ugly past. What effects, if any, do negative or extreme negative experiences in the straight arena have on sexual preference? We’re not just talking ugly puppy here, but things like rape, incest, etc.

A possible example might be looking at the prevalence of lesbians among strippers: the job entails seeing the literal worst of men every day; does this affect sexual preference? Or perhaps lesbians are less stigmatized by the societal image of strippers given their self-exclusion from the traditional female role?

Always more questions than answers.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *