Customer Reviews

The Nature of Homosexuality: Vindication for Homosexual Activists and the Religious Right

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

This self-published book summarizes a wide range of research on the origins and prevalence of 'non-heterosexuality' (his term). Nothing here is new, except Holland's awkward handling of the data. Holland hides his moral condemnation of non-heterosexuality in quasi-scientific terms: non-heterosexuality may be 'natural' but it is nevertheless 'abnormal' and is associated with various mental 'disturbances.'

To achieve this result, Holland relies heavily on the suspect claim that homosexuality and pedophilia are intimately linked. To force that correlation, Holland claims that married, self-identified heterosexual men who molest boys are 'really' gay, even when they have no erotic attachment to other adult men. He writes:

"Now, why in the world would heterosexual men molest boys? Why not consider that homosexuals attracted to boys have gotten married just to pass-off as normal? . . . A man sexually interested in boys would naturally attempt to befriend a single mom with a son that he fancies; most such men would be capable of having sex with women even though they prefer boys, and it would be a mistake to call these individuals heterosexual."

Such 'why in the world' reasoning & fanciful story-telling permeate this book. Note, too, Holland's quick identification of pedophilia and homosexuality, and without argument. Perhaps male pedophiles marry women simply to gain easy access to their adopted children (although we would need data to conclude even that, which Holland doesn't provide). But this in no way shows that erotic attachment to boys is correlated in any way with erotic attachment to adult men. Simply redefining all acts of child molestation as 'non-heterosexual' obscures the whole point of the research. The real question is whether gay men are more prone to pedophilia than straight men. Answering that question requires that we keep track of the erotic attachments of pedophiles (whether, in addition to children, they are also attracted to adult members of their sex or not), and seeing whether any correlations can be drawn. Instead of a careful analysis of the available evidence, we get Holland's breathless distortions.

In short, Holland's analysis is uninformed, sloppy, and misleading. His book is full of wild claims about masturbation, pedophilia, and the fashion industry (gay men, after all, run the fashion industry & since they are prone to pedophilia, they can't help but produce the likes of Kate Moss -- boyish waifs who, Holland assures us, no straight man would ever lust after). Is it any wonder that no publisher, not even a Christian one, would take on this diatribe?

Another attempt to explain away and condemn homosexuality without admitting to hatred and bigotry. Sure, gays are "natural" in that they have a biological disorder they can't help, but nope, they aren't meant to be here. The author's attempt to dismiss what he seems to think is "feminism" are particularly ham handed, if faintly amusing. Did you know, for example, that most feminists are "female homosexuals?" Oh, and did you know that fashion models are tall and scrawny because most fashion designers are gay and therefore like their models to look like boys? No? Well, now you do. Believe me, if you're looking to actually learn something about EITHER homosexuality OR the religious right, there are far more accredited scholarly books to read, and if you're looking for a fun story about being gay (or being a feminist or being a fashion designer or being a Christian -- or all four together in one happy, well adjusted human being), there are plenty of great reads out there that don't lead you through such tortured, hateful "logic."

Yeah, this book and the website homosexinfo.org is a definite trump card on the most comprehensive understandings of what homosexuality is really about. As you can see the bad reviews are from people who don't like it based on their emotions. The book doesn't reinforce how they feel, so they have no other way but to call foul with no facts to back. One reviewer even went as so far to use the 'shame into silence' tactic that was spelled out in the homosexual manifesto book called After the Ball pg 226 tactic 11. This is a tactic that has been propagated by the leaders of homosexual activist groups through the media and word-of mouth where people reflexively use it, because it was a lie repeated so much they believe it. The tactic is this: "label everybody who disagrees with homosexuality and dare speak their mind about it as "homophobes" and then link homophobia to claims of latent homosexual tendencies. Another words, to shut them up call them a homophobe and there a closet homo. I find it both ironic and interesting that people who defend homosexuality will use it to insult others who don't.

Facts speak for themselves. And this book is full of facts. Because the book is mostly a synthesis of previously published findings from experiments and correlational analyses, rife with physiological jargon (which is thankfully explained), the book is a challenging read, but the insights gained are more than worth the effort. Holland does make novel arguments, some of which rely on assumptions that might be false, but otherwise the book is difficult to criticize, unless one were to read the studies he cites and find fault with their methods.

One of the reviewers, "BRS," has either not read the book or is deliberately distorting it. Never does Holland say anything "condescending" about homosexuals. To say so would be like saying that findings that show that the average IQ of 5-year-olds is a full standard deviation below that of 20-year-olds is condescending, when in fact gathering such data and showing the disparity between the groups is easy to do and would be hard to criticize. It's only condescending if one considers high IQ as a mark of superiority. Further, Holland has explicitly argued against the notion of homosexuality being a disease, disorder or illness. Even Holland's website instructs readers not to use his work to deprive homosexuals of "the right to life, liberty, bodily integrity, fair employment and fair housing."

Regardless of what Holland's intentions might be in publishing this book, it is a definite contribution to science. Firstly, it quickly shows that the trite, yet somehow perennial, "nature versus nurture" approach won't ever yield any real understanding of the subject of homosexuality. No one wakes up one day and just decides he wants to be a homosexual. At the same time, no one with a homosexual orientation must satisfy his urges in order to survive. For the freewill proponents, understand that homosexuals can choose to abstain from sex, but they do not choose their sexual orientation.

What Holland shows, however, is that homosexuals, bisexuals, and pedophiles have a difficult time abstaining, much more so than heterosexuals do. Their sexual urges tend to border on obsession-compulsion, which is disproportionately much less common among heterosexuals.

Although homosexuality is not itself a mental disturbance, it is more likely than heterosexuality to be intrinsically accompanied by mental disturbances. And the association with mental disturbances is even stronger for persons with fickle sexual targets, like bisexuals.

It may appear that a comparison of lesbian and male homosexual behaviors is like comparing apples to oranges, but Holland documents that not only men who have sex with men (MSM) but also women who have sex with women (WSW) are more promiscuous, on average, than their exclusively heterosexual counterparts. In fact, WSW, including self-identified lesbians, are more heterosexually (yes, that's the word I meant to use) promiscuous, on average, than exclusively heterosexual women. Holland argues convincingly that, of the various possible explanations of the greater promiscuity of homosexuals and bisexuals, the correct explanation is a disinhibited sex drive, which generally tends to accompany abnormal sexual interests, e.g., pedophilia, bestiality and fetishism. Further, the higher incidence of mental disorders seen among homosexuals and bisexuals is also observed among people with abnormal sexual interests.

Since few among those that identify as lesbian, gay, or homosexual remain exclusively homosexual throughout their life, there is a debate as to what sexual behaviors or other characteristics demarcate people into sexual orientation categories or whether there are any sexual orientation categories to begin with. Holland argues, citing studies using complex statistics, that there is indeed a categorical demarcation pertaining to homosexual and heterosexual behaviors. It is one between exclusively heterosexual individuals and others collectively termed as nonheterosexuals, which include people with any level of homosexual attraction or homosexual behavior. Apparently, the prenatal hormonal influences and mental disturbances associated with homosexuality extend to nonheterosexuals in general.

Even identical twins, essentially clones of each other, can be raised in the same environment, yet develop different sexual orientations. In fact, the identical twin of a homosexual is most likely a heterosexual.

This shows that homosexuality is not primarily a genetic condition, although Holland takes great pains to argue that the environmental factors contributing to homosexuality are not coming from the social environment but include the developmental environment in the mother's womb and randomness related to developmental disturbances.

I wish that instead of just briefly mentioning the extensive literature on brain abnormalities-as in Kluver-Bucy syndrome-and the accompanying abnormal sexual behaviors, which are much more frequently found among homosexuals and bisexuals than exclusively heterosexual people, Holland had elaborated on the details of these brain abnormalities.

Overall, however, Holland has made his points meticulously. He also lists pre-emptive arguments to void the smear of social contructivists and other sophist ideologists, like Ms. BRS.

Finally, I wish he had spent some time hypothesizing what role homosexual behavior might play in exacerbating the mental disturbances that several homosexuals have. After all, while homosexuals attempt to adapt their lifestyles to fulfill the desire for monogamous, loving relationships, they seem to be spinning their wheels, considering their high break-up rate, high promiscuity levels (typically initiated at a young age), and the absence of what one might call "gay chastity." Might it be that homosexuals, like many heterosexuals, only add to their mental anguish by satisfying their sexual inclinations? Could it be that the well-meaning proponents of homosexual "love" are really doing homosexuals a disservice by encouraging their lifestyles? Give Holland a grant and let's see what he finds.

[...] This book is exhaustively researched and despite my higher level education I've probably never read a book so pithy and thick with references and resource material per page. It is a stroke of scientific empirical mastery in so far as it is an incredible gathering of hundreds of peer review journals, foreign and domestic. The hard science is accounted for many times over and yet I find it refreshingly honest that Erik accounts for some seeming counter evidence of some specifics in his book, which he dispatches and demystifies well enough. So rare do you even find a book of science that so often offers the other viewpoint, and certainly his book, based on logic and well researched evidence, can't be classified into any exacting and expected cultural group's viewpoint. He really lets the science speak for itself and plugs in the results, letting all isms, religions, activists and the not so scientific views of homosexuality in society find themselves at odds and evens with the evidence, for and against.

The book isn't all just biology and statistics. It has specifics of homosexuality that you might only expect to find in pornography. Refreshing again to see such things in a scientific framework with all its accompanying disciplines as a kind of virtuous guideline with no social agenda. Yet Erik assigns the false nature of many arguments for and against homosexuals, based largely, if not exclusively, on science. And interestingly enough he assigns the truer nature of many arguments for and against homosexuals/homosexual origins along with the falseness of the same side, just like the curious subtitle of his book indicates. Great to see science cut through what I always suspected were exaggerated claims by either extreme.

Very interesting and whether gay or not you can find how much biology itself molds and shapes behavior much more than the usual superficial easy explanation given to arising homosexuality as socially constructed and environmentally instigated within human culture, such that reading this book gives yourself clues as to your own emerging sexual self by comparison to homosexuals and especially if you are one.