Boys: have you had same-sex thoughts? POLL CLOSED - results pg. 8

[Mellow*D]

I take back what I said about you being open to other's opinions

Where did you get this "fact" you keep referring to? And why is it so hard for *you* to believe that sexuality can be genetic, as much as having blue eyes or being left-handed?

okay that 'fact' was a general statement, not a 'fact' I have. Anything I have said in this forum in unable to be substantiated with scientific data, it's my opinion and I expected it to be treated as such.

It's hard for me to believe sexuality can be genetic, because it relies on a non-physical mind state. Just like experiences shape your personality (do we all agree on that? another argument brewing.... ) I THINK (note 'THINK' not 'CAN FACTUALLY PROVE') that sexuality lies in your psyche, and is subject to psychological experience but not to physical 'limitations' (for want of a better word).

So I am V. sorry to all I have offended lol sometimes I just leap right in

This is what I believe on the topic of sexuality. Having said that, I agree with the 'bell-curve' idea, that some people are extreme-hetero or extreme-homosexual, but most are somewhere in between.

*ducks*

 

[expo1]

So I am V. sorry to all I have offended lol sometimes I just leap right in

mate you havent offended me anyway - i know its your opinion, i might think its a load of shite but to be honest it doesnt bother me.

its a discussion board - this is the point. you voice your opinion, i voice mine.

dont worry!

some people just take it all a bit too serious!

david*

 

[Mellow*D]

^^ thanks

*looks for the thumbs-up/'cheers mate' emoticon*

 

[Strawberry_lovemuffin]

So I am V. sorry to all I have offended lol sometimes I just leap right in

You haven't offended me either. You have your views and that's cool. It's an open forum for discussion here, no-one's attacking you personally.

Leap right in, by all means; just sometimes know you'll be leaping into topics some have very firm opinions on.

I find your honesty refreshing actually.

*hugs* SLM xo

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Okay okay I was getting frustrated but I'm glad ppl can see my position now. (I need to learn to express myself better) This is a very open topic... it'd be interesting to do a study on the 'genetics' of homosexuality, to see if any link does exist. For this to be true tho, wouldn't homosexuality be extinct by now?

Hmmmmm it goes deeper and deeper....

"wouldn't homosexuality be extinct by now?"
No, because genetics doesn't work that way. There are genetic medical conditions which result in sterility. If genetics worked in the manner you've suggested, the trait would have disappeared long ago. The reason that it has not is because the trait can be carried by someone without it being "expressed" in them (they become "gene carriers"). They pass the gene on to their children. Their children pass it on to their grandchildren. And so on...

They could have [for example] 4 children, and only one of them would express the trait. The remaining 3 could pass it on to their children. It could disappear for several generations and then suddenly show up again.

This is why we are still dealing with genetic diseases, many of which has been expressed within our species for very long periods of time. And under some special circumstances can become more pronounced due to public health events. Cystic Fibrosis very likely became more common due to the Bubonic Plague in Europe 700 years ago. You are more likely to survive the Bubonic Plague if you have Cystic Fibrosis, because you will not dehydrate as badly as someone without the disease (see: http://www.lalecheleague.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVOctNov02p99.html). And because you survived it, you get to reproduce and pass the gene on.

I guess I'm starting to drift off topic. Sorry...

Anyway, you get the picture.

 

[Ceezur]

I think I agree with Mellow*D, in a sense. I am gay, I was raised by my mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. My father was never, NEVER around. I know who he is, but I dont know him. Also, I think Genetics has a little bit to do with it. My mother is Bisexual. Just the combination of environment and genetics doomed me to a life of homosexuality. Ok, doomed is pretty strong, its not so bad.

 

[Mellow*D]

lol yes doomed is a fairly strong word.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Ceezur,

Your background sound quite a bit like mine. Except that my mother is not bisexual, and I am a flaming heterosexual.

Environment can sure shape your sexuality. But in terms of what we are discussing here, the environment doesn't decide if you are gay or straight. I think, at best, the environment can cause a bisexual to lean more to one side than another. But that is only because the "versatility" is already predisposed to either direction in a bisexual person.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

BTW, here are a couple scientific references to have a look at:

Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. - Laboratory of Biochemistry, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.

Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation - Science -- Volume 285, Number 5429, Issue of 6 Aug 1999, p. 803.


Something that I would like to suggest is that people who are naturally disposed bisexually (and use themselves as the baseline reference) have a difficult time seeing this as a matter of genetics. For someone who is bisexual, it would seem "obvious" that it is a matter of choice because that sense of "choice" is felt from within.

Contrary to that, those who are homosexually or heterosexually disposed (and use themselves as the baseline reference) can not understand the claim of orientation being environmental. And as a result, the notion of being genetic makes the most sense.

The problem here is the "uses themselves as the baseline reference" issue.

Is sexual orientation environmentally decided? YES, BUT only where the genetic make up of the individual in question are bisexually disposed.

Likewise, the answer is NO if the individual's genetics are homosexually or heterosexually disposed.

Does this help?

 

[dyscotopia]

hmm, maybe you're right BO.. i can find men attractive and have made out with men and enjoyed it.. but i identify as straight because i don't form emotional connections with boys the way i do with girls.. there's no history of homosexuality in my family.. but i can see that if i'd had a lot of bad experiences with women, i could conceive of being gay..

 

[Sir Jac]

well, I don't really believe anyone is 100% gay or straight... myself I'm prolly about 75% straight... I've thought about having sex with a guy, I've had a blow job from a guy... but I still prefer girls...

actually I never really thought about being gay until I started getting hit on by every gay guy I know... I dunno, I suppose it's like straight guys being attracted to lesbians, you want what you can't have... and apparently I'm like every gay guys wet dream, which makes for interesting friendships I can tell you... I would prolly have a threesome with a guy and a girl... maybe have sex with a guy if my girlfriend wanted to watch, but I still prefer girls to guys in the end... it's not not like I'm denying that I'm gay or anything... the desire just isn't there... lots of fun to go to a gay bar and flirt though, good for the self esteem and a laugh

 

[Brian Oblivion]

well, I don't really believe anyone is 100% gay or straight...

Here we go again... 8)

myself I'm prolly about 75% straight... I've thought about having sex with a guy, I've had a blow job from a guy... but I still prefer girls...

OK, it is evident that you are a bisexual male. How can you make blanket statements about gays and straights, when you clearly are not either?

 

[Chaos Butterfly]

OK, it is evident that you are a bisexual male. How can you make blanket statements about gays and straights, when you clearly are not either?

Why does everyone feel the need to label everyone and put them in little boxes? This is my main issue with society.

Granted the blanket statement was a little naive, however it can be generally correct. You will always have extremes in both directions so there is inherent falseness in the statement but we can argue sematics until the cows come home

Back to my first point, it is not evident that he is a bisexual male, from my understanding (flawed as it may be ) he is a male person who enjoys sex with women, but could also enjoy sex with men. In my eyes this makes him a "person who enjoys sex with women, but could also enjoy sex with men." There is no need to label someone as something that they may or may not be, and may or may not be comfortable being named.

What society needs to come to grips with is that just because a man has sex with a man does not mean in all or even most cases that he will Identify as gay or even bisexual. I have sex with lots of people but I don't identify as gay, straight, bisexual or whatever. I identify myself as a person who likes sex, a person who challenges societies 'boxes.' If only more people thought this way, or had the confidence to be themselves (in the 'gay' community) without the safety net that is 'gay culture.'

I like people for who they are, granted for me I prefer that they have a dick to go with that personality, but fuck being put into a box by every insecure person who needs to understand where I stand in terms of sexuality.

Be fucked in a box... has potential though

CB

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Granted the blanket statement was a little naive, however it can be generally correct. You will always have extremes in both directions so there is inherent falseness in the statement but we can argue sematics until the cows come home

Please read this post:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1404753#post1404753


By definition someone who is a "person who enjoys sex with women, but could also enjoy sex with men" is bisexual. I'm sorry if you think that is "labeling" someone, but that is the word used to describe someone who is both same/sex and other/sex attracted (even if they do lean in one direction more than the other). Avoiding terms simply makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion about sexual orientation.

The notion of arguing "sematics until the cows come home" is fine if your own sexual orientation is not being excluded. I personally find it insulting when someone makes blanket statements stating that everyone is "really" bisexual. That claim implies that anyone who is gay or straight (i.e., monosexual) is simply being "dishonest" with themselves and are "denying" their bisexuality (and implies polysexuality as a prerequiste to being "normal"). And I think that anyone who is bisexual, and uses themselves as a "baseline," is incapable of understanding the perspective of those of us who are naturally gay or straight (those of us who are gay or straight have a right to our distinctions just as much as a "person who enjoys sex with women, but could also enjoy sex with men").

The fact is not everyone is bisexual (some people just are not disposed toward polysexual desires - and it has nothing to do with being dishonest). And I am sorry if you or anyone else has a problem with that, but that is how it is. And before you start accusing me of being phobic I would appreciate it if you would read my past posts here so that you can at least put this all in context (and save me the trouble of repeating myself over and over again).

I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone being bisexual (regardless of what "label" or pop catchy phrase one would like to use for that orientation). I have no problem with people being gay, and I have no problem with people being straight. But I do have a problem with people from any one of these orientations claiming that everyone else is "really" inclined toward one specific sexual orientation.

 

[Mellow*D]

^^ OKAY thats very true. However would it also be true to say that bisexuality is really not a sexuality in itself? Publicly, I identify myself as heterosexual and have no immediate desire to be in a relationship with a homo/'bi' sexual male.

Does sexuality encompass more than just wanting to screw something?

Geez this is like Psychology 101

 

[Chaos Butterfly]

Chill Brian

There is going to be no throwing of phobias at anyone here

I do fully agree with you that there are people who have absolutely no homophobic tendencies. I am not someone who believes that everyone is bisexual - it would be useful however as there are some straight boys that I would definitely like to 'experiment' with

I can understand how you would be offended by the blanket statement, and as I stated before it was naive, I'm not sure exactly what Sir Jac was basing it on, although it is a concept that has been around for a while - valid or not.

And I think that anyone who is bisexual, and uses themselves as a "baseline," is incapable of understanding the perspective of those of us who are naturally gay or straight

^^ This however is bullshit.

I can understand where you are coming from with this statement, but this is again a blanket statement that someone could get offended at, granted I'm not offended although I am perfectly capable of understanding this perspective. Granted I would probably prefer a society that was completely bisexual, however I know that this is not and never will be a reality, so I get on with my life and don't worry about it. People will be people no matter who they sleep with and there are many more important things to worry or do something about in this world.

CB

 

[kennethkaniff]

I'm really into boys.

 

[buzzn_all_nite_long]

hehe your cool^^^ LMAO!!!! go kenny!!!

 

[qetui]

i've never seen a topic so thoroughly discussed... very kool:D

 

[Brian Oblivion]

^^ OKAY thats very true. However would it also be true to say that bisexuality is really not a sexuality in itself? Publicly, I identify myself as heterosexual and have no immediate desire to be in a relationship with a homo/'bi' sexual male.

I think that there are a wide range of relationships which can occur between same sex'ed people (which is why the Greeks had so many different definitions to the concept or Agape or love). When sexuality comes into the picture it brings a different dimension to it. Depending on the temperament of the individuals involved, this could create additional bonds as a part of this Agape. Or, it could simply be sex without any emotional ties.

Sexual attraction is a complex animal. It can drive us to do or say things which we normally wouldn't if the attraction was absent. In the case of someone who is monosexual, that added dynamic is only possible with one of the two genders. And with polysexual people there are no gender boundries.

Something interesting that I have observed concerns transsexuals. I have known straight men who were attracted to male to female transsexuals. They consider themselves straight, and have never entertained the notion of a same sex'ed encounter, but still find that there is a "spark" which attracts them to some transsexuals. Yet, I have also known bisexual men who were very close to the middle of the curve (i.e., were attracted to both men and women almost equally) but had absolutely no attraction to male to female transsexuals at all.

This has led me to suspect that sexual orientation is more so fueled by an attraction to "gender" (and its wrappings) rather than attraction to sex specific biology. This is a subject worthy of a thread of its own.

Does sexuality encompass more than just wanting to screw something?

As I see it, it appears to be solely based on sexual attraction itself. Like I mentioned, there are a great deal of potential relationships and emotional bonds which can take place between same sex and other sex people. The added dynamic of sexual attraction raises an additional dynamic. In the case of monosexual people, that dynamic is gender-singular. Where as, with polysexual people it is gender-inclusive. But the distinction in either case, is sexual arousal (the desire to mate).