This could generate some discussion.The thread on concept map indicated the need to differentiate between homosexual and homosexual orientation.Although the idea of bonding is usually seen in the ethological literature,not much seems to be said about male bonding which is not the same as homosexual behavior or homosexual orientation.I must have read it somwehere but it was pointed out that in some of the British all male schools,bonds among males seem to develop with some degree of intimacy but not of a homosexual orientation. It was said that there was a special bond among British spies which could have develooped as early as their school days.I remember something said about Philby and his friends who were also spies. I have hosted Israeli guests who were in the Israeli military and I observed a close bond among them. Now it could be a kibbutzim effect or and an interaction of closeness factors. I suspect that in the U.S we are too quick to label people along sexual lines instead of bonding lines.So called "homophobic" in the U.S usually implies some sexual discomfort,but if we assume there is natural male bonding(for whatever evolutionary purpose it may serve)then the label homosexual orientation could be a confusing construct. I think ,in the U.S, too many things are seen in terms of sex,sex,sex. There are stories of Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton sleeping in the same bed but that is no indication that those two guys were and are gay or homosexually oriented.I do not doubt a strong male bonding between those two or any other situations where two people have significant relationships.Many Btitishers are more faithful to their bonds.(My name is Bond,James Bond). Like the Europeabs used to say-the problems with the Americans is that they are over here and oversexed. I stand corrected if necessary.
Michael "omnicentric" Sylvester,PhD Daytona Beach,Florida --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
