[tonton]

Warning! Long post, and definitely not one for the kids...

Billy Bragg sang it best, though I can't remember his exact words.

I have always been sick of people who regard sexuality as a choice, and even those who consider it to be affected by our childhood environment. It is most definitely a product of our genes.

I was a lonely kid. My sister, four years older, treated me like total ****. I hated her with all of my heart. She got so much pleasure out of causing me emotional pain, and my parents never, ever stuck up for me when I cried about it. I should have hated all girls for that.

I got my first serious crush when I was seven. I was in second grade, and I was in love with a first grader named Erika. I was the skinniest, whitest kid in school (my hair was like snow and my skin almost as white), and I took a lot of abuse for that. I was also the smartest, learning long division when I was six, obsessed with ancient Egypt and the best student in Spanish. That only made things worse. My best friend Gerry also liked Erika. He was the best soccer player, had brown hair, a tan complexion and a tough figure, and was interested in things like Football. I had to watch them kiss under a jacket between two buildings, while I suffered with a broken heart. I should have hated girls for that.

When I was eight or so, I got a new best friend, Nathan, who moved into the house across the alley behind mine. This kid was a bit weird. I remember his mom had a nose piercing (in 1979, in my white trash town, that was a bit strange) and I think Nathan probably knew he was gay, even at that age. He knew I really liked girls. I didn't know anything about sex, and Nathan told me about it. I was really excited thinking about sleeping naked with a girl (at 8 years old!?). So Nathan said we should practice. He took me to his guest house and told me to take off my clothes. He took off his clothes, too, and we went under the covers. I don't think we actually touched eachother, and I'm not sure if we actually looked at eachother, and I'm POSITIVE we never kissed eachother. This "practicing" went on several times, usually in his guest house and a few times in my bedroom. Once, my sister caught us, and immediately ran out of the room, yelling, "mom!"

My parents never asked me about it, choosing to ignore it completely. I remember telling my mom that we were "practicing for girls" but I don't think she really believed that was why I was doing it. My sister, although as cruel as she was, didn't bug me too much about it, because I guess she understood that this was something too serious to do her usual string pulling about. After that I think they all thought I was gay, too. They never knew how every year, year after year, I was madly in love with a different girl.

Neither of my parents ever, ever talked to me about sex. First of all, my dad apparently cared very little about it, as he was busy soaking in gin and watching ESPN (or whatever crappy sports existed on television before ESPN), growing fatter night after night. Despite the stereotype that being a drunken couch potato (or bed potato in my father's case) as being a form of machismo, my dad was anything but macho. I think he was about as interested in sex as a giant panda. I recently found out he may have been impotent.

My mother ended up exploring her sexuality first through secretly reading Penthouse Letters, then through having affairs with at least one man and probably a few women as well. I didn't find out about any of this until I was in my teens, but it had evidently been going on for some time.

When I was nine or ten, Nathan moved across town, and although we saw eachother a few times the next year, we never again mentioned the "practicing", choosing instead to play my favorite game, Pitfall, on his Atari 2600.

As I said, every year, I -- the skinniest, whitest, most annoyingly smart (and smart-assed) kid in the school -- had a crush on a different girl. Every year I got rejected. Hard. All the way through high-school. By then I had developed a reputation for being pathetically in love with some poor girl, and making my love very public. Therefore no girl would even dare give me a second thought. Or even be nice to me about it. I heard the phrase "oh, no... not me" at least once during grade school. During junior high, one girl told her friend to reject me for her. In high school, at a dance, I asked one girl to dance, and she actually used the line -- and as clich� as it may sound, I'm being 100% honest: "I can't -- I have to go now, to wash my hair."

Unfortunately, all this girl business had a very poor effect on my study habits, but that's another story. And all the while my family still probably thought I was gay. But although I cried myself to sleep night after night, thinking that girls were so cruel, I never, ever looked at a guy in a romantic or sexual way.

I finally kissed my first girl when I was 17, on a school trip to France. And what a debut -- we literally kissed for hours, and I woke up sick to my stomach because of all the saliva I swallowed. I could have lost my virginity the following night, but I was stupidly chivalrous and rejected her.

I kissed another at my senior prom, and another as a freshman in college, and then I finally lost my virginity my second semester of college, at 19 years old. That very sexual relationship lasted four years.

I was always too lonely and sentimental to be macho, and I always thought the girl I was with at the time was destined to be my soulmate. I've had my heart broken dozens of times, and I've broken three (the latest being my cold-hearted wife of four years), and considering my life experience, up to and including my marriage, I really should hate women.

Not to mention I really WANT to be bisexual, as it would double the potential partner pool. I tell you, bisexuals have it made. I wish I could be one. But unfortunately, I'm not.

I'm straight. I love women and I love sex. I can't get enough of it. A smooth, lipsticked, pouty feminine mouth and a soft young vagina to probe and to play with, and also to satisfy the most primitive male urge, is all I could ever hope heaven might be. I can't even imagine looking at another man in a funny way. It just doesn't interest me. The thought of filthy penises, hairy a**holes and testosterone just makes me sick. I wish it didn't but it does.

And that, clearly, is not because of the way I was brought up. I'm straight because I was born with a straight gene. Just like gays, who may wish with all of their hearts that they were born straight, were born with gay genes, and some people were born with something in between, perhaps a mixture of the two, or neither.

So the next time some idiot suggests that sexuality is a choice, and that being gay is evil, just ask them, "then why did tonton turn out straight?"

[DoctorGonzo]

BEST THREAD EVAR!

IN BEFORE THE LOCK!

[AlbertWu]

I would drink to that, but i'm a minor.

[Avenir]

tonton, first of all, mad props for posting that. I haven't had quite the experience you had, not all that close really, but still, I don't feel like posting that stuff. Take care man...

Avenir...

[Cipher13]

Very well said dude, and kudos for saying it.

I'll start by saying that I'm a completely straight male.
I've never even thought about guys in 'that' way - its just not me. I have no doubt that its not a choice.
Though, I have no problem with people who are gay - I have one gay friend and several bisexual friends.

People can choose to 'experiment', though what would possess a completely straight person to do that? Nothing.

Its in born, I believe it MAY be genetic, but how to code for something like that... well it seems quite obscure.

Perhaps it lies in pheremones?

But pheremones aren't all its based on - you can fall in love with someone without ever having been in physical contact with them.

It might be just one facet of it all. Who knows.

By logical reckoning, anybody who's had their heart broken once or twice by their opposite gender should turn to their own, if indeed it is a choice - but its not. One way or another its hard coded into us.

But hey... its different for everyone...

[cpatubo]

I tip my hat to you, my friend... if I wore one Okay, I raise my wine glass to you. Well-thought out and insightful. Now if there were only more open-minded people in the world...

Sexuality choices aren't evil... Prejudice of any kind is evil.

[Demonhood]

damn, i thought this thread was going to be about the NC-17 ratings system (i wrote a 9 page paper on it).

that aside, excellent topic & post. i'll be interested to see the reasoning someone gives if they claim it is a choice, not biological.

[fobside]

i wont say its a choice or not but i know one of the arguments saying its inborn is that part of the brain is smaller in homosexual males than in straight males...i dont remember my biological psychology even tho it was last quarter so i dont know which part specifically. anyway, studies show that part of the brain is smaller in homosexual males. i believe studies have also shown that people who have been "converted" back to straight have shown growth in that particular region of the brain. i dunno what that proves or doesnt prove but i found that study kinda interesting.

[Millennium]

I don't know. There are a lot of things in the sexuality-as-genetic argument that just don't make any sense, particularly when viewed from an evolutionary standpoint, but also looking at such things as instinct. The numbers don't add right.

At the same time, it's quite true that not all choices are made on a conscious level. In fact, many are not. I would wager that most of the time, sexuality is like this; a choice, but only seldom a conscious one. Regardless, it's definitely a malleable thing, as countless examples show (this is said to have caused the breakup between Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche; Heche appears to have decided that she's straight). How could a malleable thing be defined by genes, which by the time we're born are basically immutable by ordinary means (it could theoretically be done, if you could modify a good portion of the some fifty trillion cells which make up the human body, but I'd like to see you modify even 1% of that)?

[scaught]

great post tonton.

the thing that really bugs me about people who think they know why someone is gay and why someone is not gay, etc, is that they usually AREN'T gay and are just some opinionated ****head WISHING they had something to prove.

who the **** are you to say who someone should or shouldnt love? and why is it a concern to you at all?

[Mottad]

Originally posted by fobside:
<STRONG>i wont say its a choice or not but i know one of the arguments saying its inborn is that part of the brain is smaller in homosexual males than in straight males...i dont remember my biological psychology even tho it was last quarter so i dont know which part specifically. anyway, studies show that part of the brain is smaller in homosexual males. i believe studies have also shown that people who have been "converted" back to straight have shown growth in that particular region of the brain. i dunno what that proves or doesnt prove but i found that study kinda interesting.</STRONG>

The "smaller brain" studies are completely faux. Studies in fraternal twins where one is heterosexual while the other is gay also have shown that it is probably not genetically linked. And as a gay person, I think it's safe to assume that it's relatively unrelated to how one is brought up, after considering the "childhood tales" of my homosexual friends. So what makes one gay? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure we really should care. If it was proven to be genetic, perhaps it may provide some relief to the (and I hesitate to use the term homophobic here) gay-hating factions, since we could merely be pushed off as, oh, handicapped. Like mentally retarded children. Why is it important to know, really?

However, I have, of course, developed a personal opinion. I can't help myself. What makes gay people gay is the same thing that makes some people like the color orange better than the color blue. Or some people like sushi while others prefer KFC chicken wings. It's a question of personal taste, and, as far as I know, personal taste is not genetic &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; "nurture"-related.
edit:
But that was an excellent post--it takes courage to write that. I, however, tend to think of the vagina as rather repulsive. It's all wet and gross *grin*

And, Demonhood, I'd be interested in reading your paper on the NC-17 rating if you have the time to post it.
:/edit

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Mottad ]

[poocat]

i'm drinking to that.

definitely one of the best posts i've ever read.

and Mottad is right.
truthfully, i don't care what makes people like what they like.
if you told me, i'd listen, but i'm not in any hurry to find it, because you all know that it would just lead to someone trying to "breed" their ideal child... which would be a mess, and it would increase bigotry instead of destroying it because people would be provably different in a scientific fashion. no good.

ah well, still we live.
mad props tonton.

poocat.

[groverat]

You know the part about the girls not wanting to go out with him whe he was too open about his crushes?
Well, there you go. Same applies here, buddy.

Anyway, the paragraph outlining how much you like to play with soft young vagina screams either "queer!" or "jack-ass!" I'll hedge my bets and vote for both.

"I like to play with soft young vagina."
"I bet you say that to all the girls!"



[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]

[Kozmik]

This thread is good. It's one of the most insightful and/or controversial threads we've had in here for a very long time.

[itomato]

Originally posted by groverat:
<STRONG>You know the part about the girls not wanting to go out with him whe he was too open about his crushes?
Well, there you go. Same applies here, buddy.

Anyway, the paragraph outlining how much you like to play with soft young vagina screams either "queer!" or "jack-ass!" I'll hedge my bets and vote for both.

"I like to play with soft young vagina."
"I bet you say that to all the girls!"



[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: groverat ]</STRONG>

You, sir, are an ass. "I like to play with soft young vagina." You think saying this is a bad idea? Let's look at the alternative.
If you don't feel strongly enough about soft, young vaginae to admit it, then perhaps you should do some soul searching of your own.

As for tonton, way to go. Did anything in particular prompt this? Very cool that you can be so open. Oh, and I know I shouldn't feed the trolls (groverat) but..

[Matsu]

Interesting.
So Tonton,

Your a ***** but not a fag. This is hardly an argument against sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice. It's a nicely written story, but not an argument. We could hypothisize that especially straight men hate women because of the over emphasized potential for pleasure and despair that they represent. When people say it is a choice they are only correct insofar as they assume sexual conduct is a choice. Who you choose to have sex with, how often, where, in what way, etc etc... Basically they'd like the homos to be celibate, cause they think it's wrong to express homosexuality. (which partly explains the conflated perception of homosexuality with promiscuity, but that's not exactly the topic)

Large part of the problem is that most heteros lack an appreciation for the terms. Anyone who plys them a little to freely becomes an offensive jerk or an offensive gay jerk, but that needn't happen. You, are a sentimentalist. Already people see that as kinda gay. But being a sentimentalist doesn't mean anything, it doesn't even make you a nice person. Did you ever think that these girls might be scared sh!tless of you cause they don't want another needy/bitter (possibly borderline obsessive stalker type) guy? We're supposed to feel sorry for you? Sadly, lots of girls fall for this crap every day. In the end (because they're as superficial as men) they ussually won't take it from a(n) (albino) troll, but they'll take it from a seemingly well adjusted hot stud type. Lethal combination that one -- the manipulative looker. You seem to be pissed 'cause you don't have the looks to go with the manipulation, maybe?

On a level you're almost saying that because you're not macho, yet still not gay, it is impossible that gays choose their orientation. Well you are, of course, wrong. It has been demonstrated that men do choose to be gay as a matter of expedience within enviroments where females are scarce. Prison, pirate ships, China ... Even lesser male primates (with less access to females) display homosexual genital touching (they caress each other's balls).

Sad thing about this whole tired, is it or isn't it a choice, debate is that both sides tend to do the same thing over and over again. The fags will spew sentimentalist crap about, hey look we're people too, and the bigots will take the rarest/most extreme examples of an already rare case and use it to argue, gay = bad. Both Wrong! Ultimately as adults in society people have to reckon things as choices. The gay has to say I choose this lifestyle 'cause it's in me, I see no reason to refute these urges based on that which no heterosexual would deny himself. And the heterosexuals have to shelve the self righteous crap and think of the only standard to which any social being is obliged--do these actions cause the harm of others? Do they damage society in any way? Of course they don't, they may damage your society, but society is not yours, it is ours, and so whether one rests their bigotry on religious or moralistic grounds means nothing to the society which is not obliged to take the interpretation of one group as sacred.

A way more interesting question Tonton, is not why did you turn out straight? But does this routine of yours actually work?

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]

[Monique]

When you are with the right person it makes all the difference in the world.

[Trash]

Originally posted by Matsu:
<STRONG>Interesting.
So Tonton,

Your a ***** but not a fag. This is hardly an argument against sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice. It's a nicely written story, but not an argument. We could hypothisize that especially straight men hate women because of the over emphasized potential for pleasure and despair that they represent. When people say it is a choice they are only correct insofar as they assume sexual conduct is a choice. Who you choose to have sex with, how often, where, in what way, etc etc... Basically they'd like the homos to be celibate, cause they think it's wrong to express homosexuality. (which partly explains the conflated perception of homosexuality with promiscuity, but that's not exactly the topic)

Large part of the problem is that most heteros lack an appreciation for the terms. Anyone who plys them a little to freely becomes an offensive jerk or an offensive gay jerk, but that needn't happen. You, are a sentimentalist. Already people see that as kinda gay. But being a sentimentalist doesn't mean anything, it doesn't even make you a nice person. Did you ever think that these girls might be scared sh!tless of you cause they don't want another needy/bitter (possibly borderline obsessive stalker type) guy? We're supposed to feel sorry for you? Sadly, lots of girls fall for this crap every day. In the end (because they're as superficial as men) they ussually won't take it from a(n) (albino) troll, but they'll take it from a seemingly well adjusted hot stud type. Lethal combination that one -- the manipulative looker. You seem to be pissed 'cause you don't have the looks to go with the manipulation, maybe?

On a level you're almost saying that because you're not macho, yet still not gay, it is impossible that gays choose their orientation. Well you are, of course, wrong. It has been demonstrated that men do choose to be gay as a matter of expedience within enviroments where females are scarce. Prison, pirate ships, China ... Even lesser male primates (with less access to females) display homosexual genital touching (they caress each other's balls).

Sad thing about this whole tired, is it or isn't it a choice, debate is that both sides tend to do the same thing over and over again. The fags will spew sentimentalist crap about, hey look we're people too, and the bigots will take the rarest/most extreme examples of an already rare case and use it to argue, gay = bad. Both Wrong! Ultimately as adults in society people have to reckon things as choices. The gay has to say I choose this lifestyle 'cause it's in me, I see no reason to refute these urges based on that which no heterosexual would deny himself. And the heterosexuals have to shelve the self righteous crap and think of the only standard to which any social being is obliged--do these actions cause the harm of others? Do they damage society in any way? Of course they don't, they may damage your society, but society is not yours, it is ours, and so whether one rests their bigotry on religious or moralistic grounds means nothing to the society which is not obliged to take the interpretation of one group as sacred.

A way more interesting question Tonton, is not why did you turn out straight? But does this routine of yours actually work?

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Matsu ]</STRONG>

You make a couploe of interesting points, mostly in the last paragraph, but there are also a couple of things that you need to think about. Saying that us fags are "wrong... about spewing sentimental crap... 'hey, we're people too'" is ridiculous--we &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; people too. *shrug*

As for homosexuality being a choice, you must realize that there's a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. What is displayed by the sailors and primates you referred to is the latter--one is generally heterosexual, but in an environment were heterosexuality is not an option, they exhibit homosexual behaviour, and will return immediately to their heterosexuality as soon as a female is available. Orientation, on the other hand, deals with your preference. If you put a gay person in a deserted island with thousands of nubile young women, the gay man will undubitably get a little straight action on the side, if only to saciate his more primal desires. (actually, that would be a very interesting experiment *grin*)

In an ideal world, homosexuality would be a non-issue, meaning the reaction to gayness would be "... who cares?" But unfortunately, that is not the case.

[RAzaRazor]

So, You could have turned out gay, but you didn't?

Whooptie Fuc&ing Doo!

Anyone could turn out gay. But 90 percent don't.

Childhood sucks for everyone. Everyone gets rejected, everyone gets hurt emotionally.

Congratulations. You are Normal. Please, won't you share another amusing anecdote with us?????

[daimoni]

Wow. Great post, tonton. Your coolness factor has gone up leaps and bounds.

It's so weird how your experiences, in so many ways, mirrored my own. I don't quite know where to begin... your story is like a made for TV adaptation of my life, except all the details are slightly different. And one might argue that I've had slightly better luck with women.

I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Gods and Monsters where the main character recalls his childhood as, "being a giraffe living in a family of farm animals".

I don't know if my parents actually thought I was gay or not (I doubt they were equiped to tell me, even if they did), but I remember sniggers and under the breath comments at family reunions during my teenage years. The funny thing was -- I wasn't gay, I just had a brain, read a lot, and was interested in other things than the typical, white-trash, joe six pack view of the world. I've always been that way.

To tell you the truth, sometimes I wished I was gay -- just so I could shock my parents. This was during the '80's, Reagan was President, and it would've been so punk rock of me! But I know it wouldn't have been the truth, nor would it have been respectful to the gay friends I had, and the memory of the personal hell some of them went through just to come out. I know this may sound corny looking back, but I was a romantic (still am), and was really into the idea of "truth" and "honesty" -- it was all I had sometimes, growing up. So, if I was gay or straight, then so be it.

For the record, I never 'practiced being with a girl' with another boy, but I did fool around with one of my best friends (at the time) when we were 16. It was pretty innocent stuff, but I won't pretend that we didn't know what we were doing. It really freaked us both out, especially afterwards. He soon stopped being my friend even though he was the one who first made the moves on me. Whatever. Did this make me gay, or bisexual? Did I all of the sudden have some hidden gay gene in me? I still don't think so.

Looking back, I'm kind of glad I had the experience -- so I could know "for sure" who I am, and what it's like for other people. I'm not saying this was some sociology experiment. But it did positively effect my wisdom level. I can't tell you how many women I've been with who have slept with another woman at least once in their life (my wife, included). I don't even trip about it. I'm just glad I found the right person.

P.S. I really like the "sushi vs. KFC hot wings" take on sexuality. It works for me. I like sushi better. Especially fresh Uni.

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: daimoni ]

[maxelson]

Tonton-
First, I am not going to give you any ****e. It ain't all that easy to say what you've said, knowing full well the level of sensitivity that can cruise around in the forum. Those (happily few) of you hell bent on flaming the guy- please. Don't want to read it- don't. I've lost respect for one or two of you- posters I had had some respect for- because of your callousness.
I think that it's a topic that has been studied time and again. As soon as I find the Harvard study linking sexual preference to heredity, i'll post it. If you do not believe that it is linked, my guess is that one of several things is true for you:
1) you have no real experience with the homosexual community.
2) you are intolerant of what you call a "lifestyle choice"
3) you are uncomfortable with the whole scenario and lashing out (not a jibe- just a statement).
4) you are a "Christian" who finds the behavior abhorrent in theological terms. The quotes are around the word because I find it ironic that anyone who knows the teachings of Christ can actually actively condemn anyone else on the basis of who they are.
I know, I am generalizing. Sorry. My intent is not to offend.

Want to know why a homosexual is? Ask one. They will tell you that the essence of tonton's statement is true. Being with someone of the opposite sex is as unnatural for them as homosexuality is for tonton.

Consider this- in this day and age, when it is legal to discriminate based on sexual preference, when it is common to be persecuted for who you are if you are gay- when it is traumatic to come to the realization and subsequent "outing"- when it is common for a gay person to always have to think about their actions in public because they do not know of the potentially disasterous effects (imagine not being able to freely hold hands in public)- who would CHOOSE this lifestyle? Who?

My dearest friend in the world is gay (and he fought that reality for years). He and his partner are the Godparents to my child. His father is gay. As was his grandfather. Let's take my own family. Two aunts and several cousins (these are only the ones I know of). I'd say that that puts down a fairly good case. Now let's take the nature v nurture thing. I will only speak from my own experience. My friends parents- a gay couple- had every bit as much to do with raising me as my own parents did. MY enitre life I have been around the homosexual community- granted, in my early life, I did not know it for what it was. Why not me? I guess it 's just not in the genes. It is not natural for me.
You know, I respond to this stuff because I just have absolutely no understanding of why this community goes through such turmoil with the rest of the world. Why should any of this matter? Why should my friends not enjoy the same rights as me? Why do they need to endure such fear and loathing? I selected these two people to be the spiritual guardians of my child. My decision was based on this question: if my wife and I should die, with whom would I feel most comfortable raising my child? There was no hesitation in my answer. They are a very loving couple, responsible and moral. They display intense values and would raise my child in a loving family environment.
I just find the whole thing sad.
Now. When you respond, do so with thought. There is enough callousness in the world. We can do without it here. Again, I am pleased to see the less than polite comments are at a minimum here.

As a parting and oversimplified shot, I would say this about people who actively condemn gays: oh, fer chrissakes. Lighten up. With all that's going on in the world, your ire is focused here? Pick a real problem.

[Swancoat]

My dearest friend in the world is gay (and he fought that reality for years). He and his partner are the Godparents to my child. His father is gay. As was his grandfather.

Ha Ha. How do you have a gay father? (At the very least he's bi-sexual)

Jeremy

[BRussell]

I have a question for folks that's related to this thread.

You know the stereotypes of the flaming gay - where did that come from? Is there any truth in it? Are gays guys more likely to lisp, or act in, you know, that way? Or is that just pure invention, and gays are no more likely to fit the gay stereotype than straights?

In short, can you spot a gay?

If there is a genetic/biological component to sexual orientation, perhaps there are other behavioral correlates, such as a preference for certain musicals, or careers in art & design?

Or, if the stereotype does fit more often than not, is it just cultural rather than biological? I mean, maybe because gays watch the same TV stereotypes that everyone else does, they internalize those stereotypes.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Swancoat:
<STRONG>

Ha Ha. How do you have a gay father? (At the very least he's bi-sexual)

Jeremy</STRONG>

Gawd are you stupid! Ugh.

[daimoni]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>I have a question for folks that's related to this thread.
In short, can you spot a gay?
</STRONG>

I guess the same thing could be asked regarding "Mac people"

Seriously though, I do think there are subtle, codified signs that are both more and less than mere gesticulation and/or words.

One can pick up these signals ("gaydar" or whatever you want to call it), especially when a person wishes to, or can't help broadcasting them to others. There are also key words and reference points, that if one were tuned-in to the subculture, it would make it easier to spot a member of that group.

I think this is true in other cultures. If I went to Naples, Italy for example -- I'm sure I would only experience half the communication going on in public, even if I were technically fluent in the verbal language... because I would be missing most of the non-verbal communication going on. I just didn't learn how to talk with my hands. And I don't know their customs or even sense of time and space for that matter.

[Trash]

I don't know. Being the antithesis to the gay stereotype that I am (hate musicals, hate fag-hags, hate Barbra and Cher and Madonna, hate lisping, hate the color pink, hate rainbows), I generally try to hang out with people with the same mindset, so I haven't quite been exposed to "the darker side" (or the pinker side) of the gay culture *grin*

There certainly are people like that, but the way they act is grossly exacerbated in TV and movies.

[Joshua]

What do you all think about the claims that a fairly large portion of homosexuals have had a history of sexual/physical/verbal abuse? There's a large body of evidence that suggests abuse during childhood (especially early childhood) shapes ones adult behavior. Thus, the woman who is abused as a child is more likely to seek out an abusive man for a spouse.

I've heard the claim that the same is true for most homosexuals - that a man who is abused by a male figure as a child (whether with words, fists, or genitals) is more likely to seek out intimate relationships with men later in life.

I used to consider that nonsense - especially since the "sources" tend to be those who seek to cure homosexuality - but I've become friends with a number of gay men/lesbians in recent years, and many admit that they sufferred some sort of abuse as children.

[suprz]

tonton, congrats for having the balls to write what you did.

and matsu,...thanks for proving yet again, you are an a$$

[BRussell]

Here's a link to one theory of sexual orientation that's been published in a very reputable journal.

It's called the "exotic becomes erotic" theory, and basically states that you identify with one sex (usually your own, but not always), and then find the other sex dissimilar, or exotic. Those differences eventually turn into sexual feelings.

So if you identify with your own sex, like most folks do, you find the opposite sex fascinating, and sexual. If you identify with the opposite sex (like a tomboy, or an effeminate male), then you find your own sex fascinating and sexual.

[Matsu]

So far there is no such thing as a gay gene (which should tell you that there is no such thing as a heterosexual gene). Sexual preference is a subtle matter. Heredity plays a role, environment plays a role, culture and so on. There is a great temptation among all of us to reduce everything to genes. The idea is so powerful, but our understanding is nowhere near refined enough to be able to claim that certain behaviors trace directly back to the genes. Science will not furnish those answers, in the same way that physics has not furnished ultimate answers. The very best minds have been left with stupifying conundrums. Genetics is waiting to play the same trick on everyone who wishes for a simple answer. Right now it just feels like genes will reveal everything, because we've uncovered almost nothing. People will have to dig awhile without satisfaction first; there is more mystery in existence than even a helix contains.

If someone is gay, so what? What I want to know is why this cynicl bunch more or less eats up Tonton's little story. It's well done, it has the appropriate empathetic hooks, but that still doesn't make it an argument for anything. Or does it?

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Joshua:
<STRONG>What do you all think about the claims that a fairly large portion of homosexuals have had a history of sexual/physical/verbal abuse? There's a large body of evidence that suggests abuse during childhood (especially early childhood) shapes ones adult behavior. Thus, the woman who is abused as a child is more likely to seek out an abusive man for a spouse.

I've heard the claim that the same is true for most homosexuals - that a man who is abused by a male figure as a child (whether with words, fists, or genitals) is more likely to seek out intimate relationships with men later in life.

I used to consider that nonsense - especially since the "sources" tend to be those who seek to cure homosexuality - but I've become friends with a number of gay men/lesbians in recent years, and many admit that they sufferred some sort of abuse as children.</STRONG>

Hmmm...
I think one could make the claim that abuse is frequently cyclical, and that it's often difficult to break the chain. The same argument could be leveled against poverty.

I know many gays who have wonderful and positive relationships with their parents, and I also know many straights who have been abused in one way or another and have horrible relations with their family.

So I don't feel comfortable with the idea that abuse leads to homosexuality, or that *most* gays have been sexually abused. Some gays have, and some gays haven't. Same thing with straights.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: daimoni ]

[groverat]

You think saying this is a bad idea? Let's look at the alternative.
If you don't feel strongly enough about soft, young vaginae to admit it, then perhaps you should do some soul searching of your own.

Yes, I do. I think it's indicative of what being "heterosexual" means to some people. If I have to be a chauvinist idiot talking like a horny 19 year old for the rest of my life to be heterosexual I'd rather be gay.

I don't feel strongly about soft young vagina, and if you do you should look into therapy to treat satyriasis. Being heterosexual isn't about getting laid, please stop doing this great disservice to my sexual orientation.

I honestly don't know if tonton's post provided anything at all to the substance of the debate at hand other than to spark the discussion.

Anyway, go on with your regularly scheduled programming, I'd just like to point out that saying "I like soft young vagina" has more to do with immaturity than it does with heterosexuality. (And, of course, there's always the "thou dost protest too much" factor)

[cpatubo]

On the subject of stereotypes and how the "Flaming Gay" stereotype came to be... well, almost every group has their extremes and the general public (uneducated public, at that) seems to base that group upon its extreme. For example (this is not meant to offend): African Americans -- there was the extreme of the beeper-wielding, gold-toothed, Drug Dealer guy and the big-bottomed, short skirted hoochie girl. Asians that cannot drive or the young men who drive low-riding small cars with huge mufflers and massive subwoofers. The people in the South living in trailers and wearing wife beater shirts and mullets. See what I mean? The stereotype begins to encompass the entire group, unfortunately. The "Flaming Gay" was the most flamboyant, obnoxious one of his type... therefore he was the standout of the group. That is why he is associated with anyone of that orientation... not the most educated association, but most people seem to make that assumption. Most of present company excluded.

[Bluebomber21XX]

Originally posted by Trash:
<STRONG>

You make a couploe of interesting points, mostly in the last paragraph, but there are also a couple of things that you need to think about. Saying that us fags are "wrong... about spewing sentimental crap... 'hey, we're people too'" is ridiculous--we &lt;i&gt;are&lt;/i&gt; people too. *shrug*

As for homosexuality being a choice, you must realize that there's a difference between homosexual orientation and homosexual behaviour. What is displayed by the sailors and primates you referred to is the latter--one is generally heterosexual, but in an environment were heterosexuality is not an option, they exhibit homosexual behaviour, and will return immediately to their heterosexuality as soon as a female is available. Orientation, on the other hand, deals with your preference. If you put a gay person in a deserted island with thousands of nubile young women, the gay man will undubitably get a little straight action on the side, if only to saciate his more primal desires. (actually, that would be a very interesting experiment *grin*)

In an ideal world, homosexuality would be a non-issue, meaning the reaction to gayness would be "... who cares?" But unfortunately, that is not the case.</STRONG>

Wow, it scares me to think that I was like Matsu only a few weeks ago.

Without changing the subject too much, I'll tell you what brought the change. I have to explain what brought it on, or else it makes no sense. If you don't know, Ecstasy more or less floods your brain with seratonin, a chemical that basically makes you happy.

I went to the movies with my friend Geoff, and we both took a hit of Ecstasy before we got there. While waiting for our movie to start, we started playing video games. I played Pac-Man as it started to kick in. We went and watched Scary Movie 2. If you saw any of the Scary Movies, you know that Marlon (I'm pretty sure Marlon) Wayans plays a character named Ray. Ray is this closet gay that acts straight on the outside.

Anyhow, since I was rolling on this, it made me start thinking. I was sitting next to Geoff, and I began talking to him as the movie made jokes about being gay. None of them were funny. I kept talking to him, about how no one should be laughing at Ray being gay, since it's not something to be ashamed about, and I felt an incredible closeness to him. It wasn't sexual, I just realized how much I valued his friendship. I'm not gay or bi, but I can honestly tell you what it feels like to be attracted to a member of the same sex.

It didn't make me feel dirty or wrong, I just felt attracted to another guy. Granted, it faded out as I came down, but I remember how I felt. Guess what? Gays are regular people, they've just chosen a partner that happens to be the same sex. Whether they choose to be gay or not, they're nothing more or less than straight people. It's amazing when you can drop all the animosity you have towards people that are different, and just accept them. It's the first step towards a society that is full of good people, with no hate.

Bravo Trash, what a beautiful post.

[cheerios]

with respect to spotting gays... I had someone tell me when I came out teo them that they had known for months... of course, I didn't know at that point, so it kinda shocked me... I'm like, "what do you mean, you knew???" adn she answered that she didn't know how, she just did.

As to that, Personally, my KNOWLEDGE of my sexual orientation has changed a couple times, but WHO I AM hasn't. I havn't changed, my understanding of myself has changed. So, what that says about anything, I don't know, but I think that maybe it has to do with whether you're born gay, straight, bi, whatever. I guess I would say you have to be, 'cause it's not environmental, completely, 'cause I was attracted to women LONG before I met anyone who was gay. Oh well, I'll try to post more, maybe, when I'm awake... night y'all

[- - e r i k - -]

This thread is totally gay!

[simonjames]

I agree with erik - this post is totally gay

guys who start their post by stating they're 100% straight male or that they've fingered virgin ***** just reeks of positive reinforcement - you say it to yourself enough times and it will become true - a lie is a lie no matter how many times you say it.

I thought closets were a thing of the 80s - be happy with who and what you are - remember - at the end of the day there is only one person you must make sure is happy and that person is you

being gay is not a failing - not being true to yourself is true failure

[maxelson]

Originally posted by groverat:
<STRONG>

Yes, I do. I think it's indicative of what being "heterosexual" means to some people. If I have to be a chauvinist idiot talking like a horny 19 year old for the rest of my life to be heterosexual I'd rather be gay.

I don't feel strongly about soft young vagina, and if you do you should look into therapy to treat satyriasis. Being heterosexual isn't about getting laid, please stop doing this great disservice to my sexual orientation.

I honestly don't know if tonton's post provided anything at all to the substance of the debate at hand other than to spark the discussion.

Anyway, go on with your regularly scheduled programming, I'd just like to point out that saying "I like soft young vagina" has more to do with immaturity than it does with heterosexuality. (And, of course, there's always the "thou dost protest too much" factor)</STRONG>

OK, being the nit picky soul I am- "the lady doth protest too much" is the quote. Hamlet. Just one of my many foibles. Don't screw with Hamlet (also a great study in certain sexual topics).
As for the "young, soft" quote, I am thinking the description is there to illustrate the point, not belabor it. Sure- the phrase is a little cumbersome and over colored, but no one said the guy was Norman Mailer.
Remember when we were teenagers? I know for me, sexuality WAS about getting laid. All of the warm fuzzy politically correct and polite conversation aside, sexuality was all about gittin' some. Of course it was- the majority of our experience was in fantasy. As we mature, hopefully that changes.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Swancoat:
<STRONG>

Ha Ha. How do you have a gay father? (At the very least he's bi-sexual)

Jeremy</STRONG>

OK. There's the serious answer to that, then the not so much serious answer. I'll just give you the serious one.
This is a guy who is now in his sixties. When he was younger, given the era, suppression was what it was all about. He did the "normal" marriage thing (normal according to the proposed DOMA laws, anyway) and it just did not work out because he was gay. It seems to me that the biggest guilt in this guy's life was that he put his ex wife through that.

[Matsu]

Okay a brief synopsis of the thread so far.


People have:

pracitced for girls, mother didn't buy it.
claimed Soft pink vaginas are either in line/out of line,
Gays are normal, gays are not normal,
it's not funny to joke about fags,
My wife may be a lesbian, cool.

Matsu is an a$$.
Bluebomber is all too happy to have regressed.

hmmm... I must ask why? Because I stated that there is an element of choice in the matter. So, that's reasonable: there's an element of choice in heterosex too. I just don't buy Tonton's little tale of woe. It's laced with a subcurrent of animosity towards women. I think some of the other member's were on to something when they speculated about his real intentions.

Bluebomber was right about something: trash did make a valid point, the ideal reaction is, "So What?" And because we don't live in an ideal world is no reason why you shouldn't have the ideal reaction to something. People have to learn to filter bullsh!t. They aren't going to do that unless we draw a line somewhere on the I feel your pain axis and say enough is enough. It is Okay to joke about fags, just like it's okay to joke about heteros. Gay is funny, as a subsegment of sex it must be funny. As others have pointed out in other threads, the whole purpose of humor is to subvert/destabilize established patterns and thinking. Perhaps no area of human interaction deserves this more than sex. For god sake just look at us, guys are too macho/wimpy, no one is thin, smart, sexy, funny enough. Everyone wants to be seen as a stud or killer lady. All your friends want to know who/when/how? Some people are walking genital infections, people might get themselves killed for an orgasm, other's become fridgid for a paranoid fear of dying. This needs to be laughed at. The sheer volume of sex humor (of which a large part is 'hetero'sexual) says it. If you want to include gays in a really equal way then you need to deride/satirize them as mercilessly as we do heterosex.

The fact that people walk on tip toes around the issue says more about their relative acceptance than all the pain and suffering afterschool special style stories one can tell.

[maxelson]

OK. I guess I must be confused, or perhaps the previous reply had nothing to do with my responses.
I have no issue with the gay community being targets of comedy. None. I love comedy. I love what I call "machine gun" comedy: no one is safe. The best comedy is derived from the human drama. My issue is with the [i] word [/]. That's it. The word. I do not think I even implied that joking about this topic was verboten. Or out of my realm. I suppose it depends on the venom content. I thnk we are all pretty good judges of what is over the line. It's just that I do not see that that is what we are talking about.

Nor do I think that I will include myself in any psychological study or speculation of tonton's more deeply rooted issues. He told a story. Let it be. It started a good discussion. Is the simple fact that we converse license to rip into our psyches? I don't think it is. But that's just me. Is this parameter diminished because of the discussion medium? Some have suggested so, but I do not think that this relinquishes people from just basic polite social convention.
Hey. JMHO.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by cpatubo:
<STRONG>Sexuality choices aren't evil... Prejudice of any kind is evil.</STRONG>

Good quote! I think I may borrow that. I am strait, but do have a few gay friends. I have one hate.... and that is those who are prejudice.... I can't tolerate people who can't tolerate someone else because of something superficial like that. I have friends of every sexual orientation, sex, race, background etc... and if anyone has a problem with that GO **** Yourself.

[sebuchen]

This is my opinion so it can be taken with a grain of salt. I think that people who keep looking for a biological "cause" for homosexuality do so because they think it can be "cured". I don't think so. I think if you like someone of the same sex it's like "liking" chocolate. You can't CURE someone from liking chocolate. You like it or you don't. You're gay or you're not. If being gay was a choice then I'm just SURE everyone who admits they're gay just LOVES being alienated by their "friends" and families. I don't think people who are gay have any choice in the matter. You like what you like and don't what you don't. Where's the choice? What disturbs me about the whole thing about gay or hetero is, why is it that gay people are often KILLED for being gay? Why can't everyone just let people live the life they want to? Why is it that everyone wants to impose what THEY think is right on everyone else? Hey, if you're doing what makes you happy and you aren't hurting anyone else then more power to you.

My younger brother is gay and so I can see the situation from both sides. I could care less about what sex he wants to be with. If he's happy with what he's doing then I'm happy FOR him.

[ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: sebuchen ]

[daimoni]

Originally posted by Matsu:
<STRONG>Okay a brief synopsis of the thread so far.
The fact that people walk on tip toes around the issue says more about their relative acceptance than all the pain and suffering afterschool special style stories one can tell.</STRONG>

Ha Ha ha! But I don't think anybody is walking around tip toes in this thread -- at least I'm not. I shared my own little afterschool story because:

I was being empathetic with the original poster (or just pathetic).
That my (or his or her) story is in no way unique. Which I suppose makes us all "normal".
And that I thought my own story kinda funny.

I'm all about comic relief -- it has gotten me in a lot of trouble over the years, but I'm totally convinced that I would be dead without my sense of humor.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: daimoni ]

[Hobbit_Boy]

I am tolerant of gay individuals, whatever you do in your own life is your own buisness...and I really do not care. However, no one will ever convince me that homosexuality is "normal".

nor�mal (n�rml)
adj.
1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

Last time I saw the statistics, only 10% or so of the population was considered homosexual. They are a minority that contradicts the natrual biological insticts of nature. Is it wrong? That is a whole other can of worms that I am not going to dive into.

All I would like to point out is -- homosexuality will never be considered "normal" by many because of how uncomon it is, and how "unnatrual" it is. If more species of animals (humans included) had a more even split of hetro/gay...the gene pool would be less diverse, and according to theories of evolution...we would be farther behind due to the slower "natrual selection".

And yes, I can usualy spot a homosexual man. I call it my "gaydar" as a joke. Im right 9 out of 10 times. It's somthing about the way they act, walk, dress, and talk (language). Generaly these characteristics are based on stereotypes...but for some reason many gay men intentionaly put themselves into these stereotypes. I have even been able to spot gay men that do not exhibit sterotype behavior. I think that other men can somehow tell ... its like a sixth sence for some of us guys, ive met other guys that have the same "sence" I have too.

*disclaimer* I never once said homsexuality was choice or genetic, nor did I debate the issue of morality. (trying to keep myself as PC as possible ... lol )

[MikeM32]

I'm quite liberal and open-minded, but where sexuality comes I do believe it is a choice. Why? Because when we are born we aren't sexual in any way shape or form.

The so-called "Bisexual" is perfect proof that it's not genetic. If it's genetic how can one prefer "both"? Sorry it's just not possible. Just the fact that there ARE bi-sexuals proves that it IS a choice and not some "inherrited trait".

We chose our sexuality, it's definitely not genetic. I really get pissed-off by these people trying to claim that it's inherrited through genes.

The fact that you had these "practicing sessions" isn't unique to most heterosexual men. Every man has had some sort of "un-speakable" experience in thier very very young age with other men. This isn't unique at all.

Now the fact that you prefer women says that you made a choice. So your'e really contradicting yourself aren't you? Yes you are. It's not genetic so get off it.

By the way I Frenched a Girl at 14. So I'm way ahead of you

Mike

[daimoni]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>I'm quite liberal and open-minded, but where sexuality comes I do believe it is a choice. Why? Because when we are born we aren't sexual in any way shape or form.

The so-called "Bisexual" is perfect proof that it's not genetic. If it's genetic how can one prefer "both"? Sorry it's just not possible. Just the fact that there ARE bi-sexuals proves that it IS a choice and not some "inherrited trait".

We chose our sexuality, it's definitely not genetic. I really get pissed-off by these people trying to claim that it's inherrited through genes.

The fact that you had these "practicing sessions" isn't unique to most heterosexual men. Every man has had some sort of "un-speakable" experience in thier very very young age with other men. This isn't unique at all.

Now the fact that you prefer women says that you made a choice. So your'e really contradicting yourself aren't you? Yes you are. It's not genetic so get off it.

By the way I Frenched a Girl at 14. So I'm way ahead of you

Mike</STRONG>

Dude, tell it like it is. I totally agree with you. Thanks for saying it.

[cheerios]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
<STRONG>I'm quite liberal and open-minded, but where sexuality comes I do believe it is a choice. Why? Because when we are born we aren't sexual in any way shape or form.

The so-called "Bisexual" is perfect proof that it's not genetic. If it's genetic how can one prefer "both"? Sorry it's just not possible. Just the fact that there ARE bi-sexuals proves that it IS a choice and not some "inherrited trait".
</STRONG>

Mike, you're making things too black and white. Most traits in life aren't purely hereditary, and aren't purely environmental, or choice. They are a combination of the two. Some people suggest that bisexuals are simply gays who havn't come to terms with it yet, although I don't hold that particular belief. But just because we exist doesn't prove that it isn't hereditary or that it is. It's just not that simple.

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
Because when we are born we aren't sexual in any way shape or form.

You've almost got it. We aren't sexual in any way, but we are set upon a certain path. I'll explain below, quoting as I go...

The so-called "Bisexual" is perfect proof that it's not genetic. If it's genetic how can one prefer "both"? Sorry it's just not possible. Just the fact that there ARE bi-sexuals proves that it IS a choice and not some "inherrited trait".

We chose our sexuality, it's definitely not genetic. I really get pissed-off by these people trying to claim that it's inherrited through genes.

Bisexuality doesn't prove anything. Well, it does almost prove my point actually.
Sexuality isn't black and white. It isn't gay, straight, and bi. A gay person isn't 100% gay, a straight person isn't 100% straight, and a bisexual isn't 50/50. It doesn't work that way (no matter how much you want it to). Sexuality is a sliding scale. Much like this:

&lt;gay........................................... bi....................................straight&gt;

Now, most people are on the right of that scale. Not the far right, no one is really 100%. It doesn't make you any less of a man/woman. Most people are probably in the 80-99 range. Those people are clearly straight. They may have the occasional homosexual thought, but it really doesn't do anything for them.
Now, bisexuals are probably in the 40-60 range. They have a fairly even amount of heter/homo feelings and they choose to enjoy the company of both genders.
People that identify themselves as homosexual, on the left side, can be anywhere from 1-60. I'm sure a good number of them are 1-20. That makes them 99-80% gay, 1-20% straight. People between 20 and 50 might still be gay, but they're more apt to hide their feelings and stay in the closet or maybe even live straight lives early on.

I think society, upbringing, culture, etc.. can affect your "score" no more than 10 points. If you're 99% straight, fear of a gay planet isn't going to make you change your ways. If you're 99% gay, fear of a straight planet isn't going to make you suddenly like people of the opposite gender. But if you're close to the center, you may lean towards heterosexuality due to outside pressures.

It's just a theory, but I think it makes a whole lot more sense than the commonly accepted gay/straight black/white that we currently accept.

The fact that you had these "practicing sessions" isn't unique to most heterosexual men. Every man has had some sort of "un-speakable" experience in thier very very young age with other men. This isn't unique at all.

Now the fact that you prefer women says that you made a choice. So your'e really contradicting yourself aren't you? Yes you are. It's not genetic so get off it.

Not really, it just supports my theory. People experiment because that percentage of them that is gay is curious enough to do so (being a child, they're less hampered by society telling them how wrong it is). The fact that he still prefers women only shows that his straight percentage outweighs his gay percentage. Pretty simple.

[ 07-28-2001: Message edited by: Demonhood ]

[MikeM32]

But just because we exist doesn't prove that it isn't hereditary or that it is. It's just not that simple.

I never said it was "simple" but it is a mettr of choice. As I stated wer'e not born prown towards one sexuality or another. We don't even have sexual thoughts until we know what sex is.

As infants we just exist. The rest is learned. This is why Sexuality is an acquired knowledge and not simply "genetic". I think saying it's just gentic is also "too simple". (to quote your own post).

It's not that black and white either.

Mike