Bad News for People Who Say Sexuality is Biologically Determined

[JohnnyV]

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2007/03/26/5&navpath=/channels/news/

The above article and its related links say it all.

Back in the 1990s, gay rights advocates were delighted to hear about Simon LeVay's brain study, which supposedly "proved" that sexuality was determined by the size of the hypothalamus. They said that proof of a biological origin for sexual orientation would dispel any myths that gay people chose to be gay, and therefore they thought doors would open everywhere and homophobia would be dashed on the rocks.

Even back then, I said, "uhhhh, wait a minute." I've never believed in the science of proving sexual orientation either natural or acquired -- because I thought then, as I still do now, that we're too complicated for easy catch-all explanations. As a believer in the theories of men like Nietzsche, I also believed that there *had* to be a choice in these matters, because I believe that whenever you say "I had no choice" about the things that you do, you are surrendering control of your life and playing the victim.

I also believed then, and I still do now, that homophobia can adapt to changing theories about its origins, since homophobes aren't really concerned with what makes people gay. They just want to target gay sex as dirty and evil.

Nobody listened to me and people who raised my objections in the early 1990s ... the studies multiplied ... gay rights advocates grew more and more dependent on the "I didn't choose this life" logic ... the scientists got more and more insular and convinced that their laboratory studies were actually documenting things that made sense of the mysterious behaviors people made in their complicated lives ...

... and now, in 2007, as predicted, there is a movement by Christian antigay agitators to develop a prenatal treatment to "cure" babies and save them from this "horrible affliction" that "the poor creatures had no choice about."

And the same people who were once protesting against people like me who said sexuality is always a choice -- because life is all about choices -- are now protesting against people who say homosexuality is biologically determined, which was ironically what the protestors were saying back in 1992.

I hate to say I told you so, but this is so damned depressing.

J

[Tommy2020]

Years ago, I witnessed a horrible incident that happened to a co-worker (I'll call him Frank) after it was discovered that he was one of those "HOMOSEXUALS".

It was at work (Houston was such a wierd place anyway) and someone had overheard Frank's phone conversation with his 'friend' of several years. His 'friend' was apparently sick and staying at home that day. As it developed, the person that overheard the conversation went straight to the break room and announced to everyone that was within listening distance that Frank was "QUEER". Before the day was over, Frank found his car vandalized, his locker broken into, all the people that sat next to him in the assembly area moved their chairs away to other areas and he was actually spit on by a few others. And as if that was not enough, he was fired before the day was over.

This is off topic for this thread but it was my very early education as to how some persons in this world view the gay and bisexual community overall. Back then, there were no laws protecting that portion of souls in our population. And, it was not 'COOL' to sympathize with those 'PEOPLE'.
My point being that there will always be someone, or some group, or some segment of the population that will always HATE gays, lesbians, and bisexuals like we were vermin.

There may be the laws of human rights present now but those same laws will NEVER provide for the overt protection against those attitudes that provoke others into stupid actions of HATE against those who choose (whether by choice of genetics) alternate lifestyles. My God, when will this end?

This is a true story and then I will get off my soapbox. This happened back in the early 70's as I was travelling through Louisiana for my small company. I pulled into a small roadside cafe for coffee as it was getting late. As I was sitting at the counter, two guys walked in and sat down in a booth. When the waitress walked over to them, she said, "We don't serve queers in here".
One of the guys looked at the other one, then looked at the waitress and said, without breaking a smile, "That's okay, I don't plan on eating a queer here."

Tommy2020
On his soapbox again... :soapbox:

[Rhuth]

I hate to say I told you so, but this is so damned depressing.*hugs JohnnyV* Awwwww! Don't get depressed! You know from experience that most people aren't the ones at the extreme ends of the opinions. Just the loudest people are. Unfortunately the stuff hurled by the extreme ends never reach each other. So both sides only hit those of us in the middle.

When I imagine Anita Bryant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Bryant), who is credited with starting the religious right, I picture her setting brussel sprouts in front of her children and telling them that they cannot say they don't like it unless they have tried it. I think brussel sprouts taste gross, but pussy tastes wonderful! Have you tried eating pussy, Ms. Bryant? Don't knock it 'till ya tried it! :tong:

Your article points out that claiming a lack of choice because of genetics opens homosexuality to being defined as a genetic disease to be cured. I just cannot find a funny scenario to point out the idiocy of this. It is just as ludicrous as Anita Bryant tasting pussy to see if she likes it.

I like to imagine most people see both extremes as ludicrous. In the end, a ludicrous claim, no matter how loud it is, simply has no influence. For a short while, they can influence some local laws, like the KKK was able to do against civil rights. But in the long run, they are just loud enough to bring issues to mainstream attention enough for the obvious middle ground to slowly but steadily plow them down.

[darkeyes]

I have an insatiable curiosity for many things. However, one thing that I dont care about, or have a great interest in is why I am what I am.. whether biological or otherwise, it is of no interest to me why my sexuality is as it is. I am. Thats all I need to know and am happy to leave it that that.

But others are not, and I do see why others have an interest. That interest is often very sinister, and it is a truism, that whatever reason exists for our sexuality, those who wish to use it as a stick to beat us with shall always find a reason and tailor their vicious prejudices accordingly. It is something we are going to have to live with for some time yet I'm afraid, and we too will always have to tailor our response to that bigotry and intolerance accordingly.

[bi-robin-calif]

I believe that ultimately, sexual orientation, as with so many other issues relating to the human condition, will be shown to have many, many causes and influences. Why, for example, was I born with blue eyes and light-blonde hair? Well, okay--both parents had blue eyes. But my mom was blonde and my dad brunette. And now, all these years later, my hair is dark brown. According to simple genetic theory, it should be one or the other.

But our knowledge and understanding of genetics is always changing and evolving. Someday we may know everything there s to know about the human genome. But what does that mean? I know as much of the English language as did Shakespeare or William Blake, but whose poetry would you rather read? Or, to put it another way, a list of ingredients doesn't make one a chef.

The prevalence of certain diseases in my family indicates a genetic predisposition, but doesn't explain why some of my relatives died from them while others were unaffected.

There's no "magic bullet" to point to and say, "Aha! There's the little bugger!" Darkeyes is right: who cares why we are the way we are? Why not just accept each of us on an individual basis, without trying to analyze what makes us this way? I got enough of that in Psychology 101 in college.

I'm a bisexual man who just happens to be in a phase in which I am more attracted to men than to women. It's the way I am. I don't have a problem with it, and if other people do, I respectfully submit that it is their problem, not mine.

[instinct]

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2007/03/26/5&navpath=/channels/news/
I believe that whenever you say "I had no choice" about the things that you do, you are surrendering control of your life and playing the victim.


So then there's no such thing as mental illness, instinctive tendencies or genetic influences? I hope you really don't mean that. I agree that in general that one always needs to take responsibilty for his/her actions and live with the consequences. That doesn't mean each and every action one performs is always a conscious 'descision'.



I hate to say I told you so, but this is so damned depressing.


I don't understand... you said sexuality could not be proven to have specific genetic causes and is a choice. I don't see anywhere in the article that supports your assertion, in fact the article seems to say just the opposite.

Whether or not it's a good thing that sexuality is genetically caused/influenced is an entirely different matter (and you certainly raise a good point about potential problems), but your stated point was not about that at all.

[softfruit]

My main gripe with all these sexuality research things is that they start from "we are straight until something goes wrong" as their basis, and look for what genetic or environmental factor screwed up our "normal" sexual orientation. Not "we are bi unless something stops us being so" which seems to be the pattern through nature...

'course, I'm bi-ased ;)

[darkeyes]

My main gripe with all these sexuality research things is that they start from "we are straight until something goes wrong" as their basis, and look for what genetic or environmental factor screwed up our "normal" sexual orientation. Not "we are bi unless something stops us being so" which seems to be the pattern through nature...

'course, I'm bi-ased ;)

You may well be right hun. I suspect you are, but why cant we just accept we are and screw the why...

[innaminka]

However, one thing that I dont care about, or have a great interest in is why I am what I am.. whether biological or otherwise, it is of no interest to me why my sexuality is as it is. I am. Thats all I need to know and am happy to leave it that that.

.
And amen to that!

Sometimes I wish that maybe I wasn't, but as to the reasons - bio or nurture - I have no interest. I am ME! I like me and so do lots of others!

I'm quite happy to let others at the extremes argue over causes.

[flexuality]

My main gripe with all these sexuality research things is that they start from "we are straight until something goes wrong" as their basis, and look for what genetic or environmental factor screwed up our "normal" sexual orientation. Not "we are bi unless something stops us being so" which seems to be the pattern through nature...



You may well be right hun. I suspect you are, but why cant we just accept we are and screw the why...

Personally, I believe that bisexual is the natural state of human beings.

For whatever reason, society has placed some kind of dividing line between men and women and ended up with this crazy idea that only "straight" is normal. (I hate that word! lol!)

I think that is has been so injected into our thinking....this idea of straight as being normal.....that one of the main reasons there is so much analysis and research and "trying to explain" anything other than straight is because at some level all people find themselves attracted to a lot of different people, some of them the same sex. I think that scares most people.

I think that because of society's paradigm of straightness, it really bothers a lot of people to find themselves attracted to the same sex and they deny the attraction.....rather loudly and abusively sometimes. Or fearfully, as in homophobia.

I do not think there is any kind of "biological" explanation...I think that they're asking the wrong question.

I also believe that the only conscious choice that enters into sexuality is the choice of how we act on it. (hmmm...I hope that comes out right....I'm only referring to our actions being our choice.)

I find that people in general have attractive qualities about them and it varies form one person to the next and that gender really is secondary to that.

I used to be very fearfully homophobic at one time. Truth is, I was afraid of my own attraction to some women until I realized that I would find those same qualities attractive in ANYONE, male or female.

If I had only ever been around men, I would have found some attractive, some not, and I guess I would have ended up with the straight label. On the other hand, if I had only ever been around women, some would be attractive to me, some not, and I would probably have the lesbian label. I just happened to have been around a lot of men AND women and found attractive qualities in BOTH.

**trying to get my thoughts clear here....and wondering if any of this is coming out right....lol**

I think that it is FEAR that drives the "need to explain", the research, etc.

[Danielle B]

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2007/03/26/5&navpath=/channels/news/

The above article and its related links say it all.

Back in the 1990s, gay rights advocates were delighted to hear about Simon LeVay's brain study, which supposedly "proved" that sexuality was determined by the size of the hypothalamus. They said that proof of a biological origin for sexual orientation would dispel any myths that gay people chose to be gay, and therefore they thought doors would open everywhere and homophobia would be dashed on the rocks.

Even back then, I said, "uhhhh, wait a minute." I've never believed in the science of proving sexual orientation either natural or acquired -- because I thought then, as I still do now, that we're too complicated for easy catch-all explanations. As a believer in the theories of men like Nietzsche, I also believed that there *had* to be a choice in these matters, because I believe that whenever you say "I had no choice" about the things that you do, you are surrendering control of your life and playing the victim.

I also believed then, and I still do now, that homophobia can adapt to changing theories about its origins, since homophobes aren't really concerned with what makes people gay. They just want to target gay sex as dirty and evil.

Nobody listened to me and people who raised my objections in the early 1990s ... the studies multiplied ... gay rights advocates grew more and more dependent on the "I didn't choose this life" logic ... the scientists got more and more insular and convinced that their laboratory studies were actually documenting things that made sense of the mysterious behaviors people made in their complicated lives ...

... and now, in 2007, as predicted, there is a movement by Christian antigay agitators to develop a prenatal treatment to "cure" babies and save them from this "horrible affliction" that "the poor creatures had no choice about."

And the same people who were once protesting against people like me who said sexuality is always a choice -- because life is all about choices -- are now protesting against people who say homosexuality is biologically determined, which was ironically what the protestors were saying back in 1992.

I hate to say I told you so, but this is so damned depressing.

J

So you're going to be all depressed because of something that a bunch of authoritarian, anti-science, pro-bigotry cultists are peddling? Sorry, but I don't understand THAT. Their agenda is to make society "normal" exactly like them, where "illnesses" like homo/bisexuality are swept under the rug (notice I didn't say eliminated), and their Ted Haggards can just go to a 21-day faggot rehab, be forgiven for their sins, and be forever "cured".

Those people are nuts. They are very much a cult, and no self-respecting person should take anything they say to heart.

[teamnoir]

I read the full article and I still don't see why you think that this somehow proves or doesn't prove that sexual orientation isn't or is a biological or a genetic factor?

These people are staging a sit in protest and neither they or the baptist guy aren't scientists, or specialized in biology.

I don't agree that being bisexual is the "natural" way of being or that everyone's this way, since everyone isn't. Try talking to some homosexual men who have never had any desire to have sex with a woman and try talking to some heterosexual men who haven't ever had a desire to be with a man (no they're not closeted or secretly bi despite what the porn industry wants you to think or the typical gay/bi male fantasy plays out), or women who've never wanted to be with another woman.

No these people are not confused or closeted bisexuals but don't know it or somehow blinded by society, they're simply not bisexual.

Sorry it just kinda bugs me when people say that being bi is the "natural" way of life/humanity. If it really was more people would identify as bisexual and it wouldn't be so controversial and such a big deal.

Research has shown that heterosexuals make up the majority of the human population. I don't see why people have a hard time understanding this?

[flexuality]

I read the full article and I still don't see why you think that this somehow proves or doesn't prove that sexual orientation isn't or is a biological or a genetic factor?

These people are staging a sit in protest and neither they or the baptist guy aren't scientists, or specialized in biology.

I don't agree that being bisexual is the "natural" way of being or that everyone's this way, since everyone isn't. Try talking to some homosexual men who have never had any desire to have sex with a woman and try talking to some heterosexual men who haven't ever had a desire to be with a man (no they're not closeted or secretly bi despite what the porn industry wants you to think or the typical gay/bi male fantasy plays out), or women who've never wanted to be with another woman.

No these people are not confused or closeted bisexuals but don't know it or somehow blinded by society, they're simply not bisexual.

Sorry it just kinda bugs me when people say that being bi is the "natural" way of life/humanity. If it really was more people would identify as bisexual and it wouldn't be so controversial and such a big deal.

Research has shown that heterosexuals make up the majority of the human population. I don't see why people have a hard time understanding this?

I believe that I am simply looking at this from a different perspective.

I wasn't in any way saying that anyone was "closeted" or "confused" or anything about the porn industry.

I was simply trying to point out that WHO CARES who people are attracted to, and that all attractions regardless of gender are NATURAL.

I really think that THAT is what so many people get so side tracked over whenever this issue comes up. People tend to start with the ASSUMPTION that we need to "label" people in the first place. And then fear kicks in because someone somewhere decided that gay, lesbian, bisexual etc. were "wrong" and we fear what we do not understand and the first reaction is to deny. It is a natural human response.

Hundreds of years ago "research" showed that the world was flat. Everyone accepted that as FACT. And anyone who thought otherwise was considered wrong. Then to entertain the thought became a fearful thing, so one just denied it. Same thing, different coin. We fear what we do not understand and our first tendency is to deny it.

They just didn't have all the information yet.

You are entitled to your opinion, same as me. I do enjoy debating and I'll apologize up front here if I come across as harsh...it's not my intention. It's a bit tricky in text sometimes... :rolleyes:

[teamnoir]

yeah I can be very blunt too. :)

the reference to "straight" men and porn are those gay porn sites or "gay for pay" porn sites where two supposed "heterosexual" men get together to have gay sex with each other. :rolleyes:

[teamnoir]

I can be blunt with my text too. :)

The reference to a gay/bi man's fantasy/wishful thinking and heterosexual men is in reference to those gay porn sites that show two "straight" men who supposedly somehow get together to have gay sex with each other even though they're being advertised as "heterosexual" on these "gay for pay" sites. :rolleyes:

All this has to do with is an old fantasy or the idea of seeing/or getting something that you know you'll never have. Gay/bi men have this thing where a lot of times they desire "straight" men, or men who claim that they're straight and it's all just some sad fantasy and wishful thinking since real heterosexual men want nothing to do with having sex with other men.

[zeroboss]

Your article points out that claiming a lack of choice because of genetics opens homosexuality to being defined as a genetic disease to be cured. I just cannot find a funny scenario to point out the idiocy of this. It is just as ludicrous as Anita Bryant tasting pussy to see if she likes it.

I would sell my soul to Satan for a video clip of that. Hell, I'd give it to him on a 10-year lease for a still pic.

This is a good topic, one with big import for people involved in non-monogamy, fetishes, etc. I've always believed that being bi isn't the only aspect of my sexual personae that I can't fully control, but is just something that I have to live. Something doesn't have to be purely biologically based to be a fixed product of your personality.

The key is that we all deserve to seek happiness in our own way. What makes me happy isn't what's going to make Jerry Falwell happy. Just the opposite, I imagine. (Unless there are things about himself that Falwell isn't telling us...)

[flexuality]

I would sell my soul to Satan for a video clip of that. Hell, I'd give it to him on a 10-year lease for a still pic.



Close as I could do....LOL!!!

[12voltman59]

The one thing I never did understand---as a person living in a supposedly free and relatively "democratic" society such as we have in the US, the UK, the EU, Australia and Canada---why should it matter if one chooses to live one's life as a "straight," "gay," "Bisexual" or whatever lifestyle----in such supposedly free and open societies--one should have to option of loving anyone else they damn well please, whether the two parties in question are of different "racial" or ethnic backgrounds, from different socio-economic levels or of the same or opposite genders---

For America to live up to it's promises so clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied by the Constitution--one should be free to choose to be "straight," "homosexual," or "bisexual" or any combination thereof--and of course other categories not included--

By extension--such universal human rights as stated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights--should be the right of all human beings living on this planet irrespective of country of origin---

I know that such is not obviously the case--but such is an ideal we can all strive to achieve on this little rock and the issue of whether there is some sort of biological or genetic determing factor at work regarding sexual orientation should be a moot point----individual adult human beings should be free to live their individual lives in any manner they see fit as long as that manner of living does not bring harm to others and living an openly "gay" or other variation of lifestyle--and I mean a truly open and accepted alternative lifestyles would not be harmful if such was simply part and parcel to human existence---

We humans do seem to have a problem allowing our fellow humans the freedom to express sexuality as they see fit and by doing so--the repression of sexuality--gay, straight or whatever is what warps sexuality and perverts it---

May we one day get to a point where it matters not whom one loves, but that you do love....

[flexuality]

We humans do seem to have a problem allowing our fellow humans the freedom to express sexuality as they see fit and by doing so--the repression of sexuality--gay, straight or whatever is what warps sexuality and perverts it---

May we one day get to a point where it matters not whom one loves, but that you do love....

We, as humans do seem to have a problem with that, I agree. Which leads to fear.....which leads to denial, or repression....because we've been told for so long that it is somehow "wrong" to feel anything other than opposite sex attractions.

And repression can lead to warping and perversion....and so often does...

How can feelings be right or wrong?

[FalconAngel]

Actually, a few years ago, they found a genetic component to sexual preference as well as one to addiction. It is just the same as the genetic components for your height, eye color, etc.

I do believe that there are those who choose to enter into a sexual preference through subconscious choice via abuse or neglect as a child, but there is also a study that was done in Britain back in the 50's where they interviewed people who were born in the time period around the blitz in London.
They found that during various stages of pregnancy, the fetus is injected with different levels of estrogen and testosterone. (higher stress levels injected higher doses of testosterone)
If either of those is absorbed by the fetus after gender has been established, they found that it had a determination on gender preference. It could also have an effect on gender orientation (feeling like one is born the wrong gender). Again, that genetic component that drives sexual preference is there, but the chemical effect, as stated before has an effect on that as well.

So, sexual preference is out of our control.

What we do about that preference (i.e. our behavior) is well within our control, so the "devil made me do it" argument doesn't really wash whether you use it for or against the "sexual preference as choice" issue.

[flexuality]

Actually, a few years ago, they found a genetic component to sexual preference as well as one to addiction. It is just the same as the genetic components for your height, eye color, etc.

I do believe that there are those who choose to enter into a sexual preference through subconscious choice via abuse or neglect as a child, but there is also a study that was done in Britain back in the 50's where they interviewed people who were born in the time period around the blitz in London.
They found that during various stages of pregnancy, the fetus is injected with different levels of estrogen and testosterone. (higher stress levels injected higher doses of testosterone)
If either of those is absorbed by the fetus after gender has been established, they found that it had a determination on gender preference. It could also have an effect on gender orientation (feeling like one is born the wrong gender). Again, that genetic component that drives sexual preference is there, but the chemical effect, as stated before has an effect on that as well.

So, sexual preference is out of our control.

What we do about that preference (i.e. our behavior) is well within our control, so the "devil made me do it" argument doesn't really wash whether you use it for or against the "sexual preference as choice" issue.

Interesting....

The whole idea of there being a "sexual preference" or a "gender preference" always strikes me as being something people try to determine based on an inaccurate assumption to begin with.

I really believe that it is more of a "person preference" and that sex is just one way of expressing that.

I don't think my sexual preference has ever been determined by the gender of a person, (other than when I believed that I was only supposed to be sexual with men) but rather by how I feel about a person.

[Long Duck Dong]

like flex, I tend to believe that bisexuality is a natural way of being for all people

we all have the ability to interact sexually with any being, human or otherwise, however we choose our partners, and that is where sexual identity plays a role

many people have argued with me that heterosexuality is the * norm * at birth.... I argue that the need to procreate is the * norm * at birth, the preference of partner is NOT

now I don't argue bisexuality as a sexual sense....to me bisexuality is a small aspect of a person.... and attractions and desires make up a big part of being bisexual, but so does mental thinking, emotional stats and a general way of life.....the actual sexual acts make up a small part of being bisexual

in respects to genetic disorders, trying to sort out sexuality by genetic traits, is next to impossible.....first of all you need to prove the heterosexual people are genetically perfect... and that would provide the template for defining alternative sexuality.....however the heterosexual groups is so diverse that many bisexuals would be classed as straight and vice versa

[Brian]

Well said JohnnyV et al.

I too always thought the "genetic cause" cause was taking a very dangerous approach.

Do we really want homosexuality/bisexuality labelled a "handicap"?

And I always thought it missed the boat completely on the equal rights issue. It's wrong to discriminate against homosexuals and bisexuals not because we can't help being that way, but because it harms no one! Is it wrong to discriminate against natural redheads who can't help it, but okay to discriminate against those who choose that hair colour?

It was, and still is, a dangerous and ignorant strategy.

On a positive note, this is SOOOOO creepy:

there is a movement by Christian antigay agitators to develop a prenatal treatment to "cure" babies and save them from this "horrible affliction" that "the poor creatures had no choice about." It makes conservative christians look like the nutjobs they are. They have chosen a dangerous strategy of their own.

Also on a positive note... I think bisexuals will have a key role in this issue in the years to come. It could be that homosexuality/bisexuality has a genetic component (major or minor) but also has a component that is simply "a choice", and that bisexuals are more the latter than the former. And therefore that we will have more to contribute on this topic in the future.

- Drew :paw:

[darkeyes]

Question: If there is a genetic link, and hence makes our sexuality natural and not choice..this is wrong?

Question: If there is no genetic link and our sexuality is a matter of choice.. this is wrong?

You've hit the nail on the head Drew.. I only wish the nuts who want us to be nice little straight girls and boys devoted half as much much attention and energy on the real problems of the world which are immoral and dangerous..war, famine, poverty, corruption, environmental catastrophe, racism, Health other than HIV/AIDS etc etc etc! I prefer to devote my energies in that direction...

[Solomon]

hhmm even if there is a biological link in the brain, they've proven that the brain actually does rewire itself. truthfully, i seriously doubt that there is such a thing, just like flex said.

personally, i'm with Drew an darkeyes, there are other things that those engergies could be much better used for 'curing'. i'd like to add autism to darkeyes list as well...

[Solomon]

wow, i didn't know that this thread went this indepth.

i agree with flex though, and the reason that i agree with flex is because of socialogy studies done in great detail on gender identity with children.

basically what they found is that all of the children actually had no sense of gender until the influence by their parents, society, school, doctors, etc... had become noticeable to the children themselves apparently after they reach an age of being able to better understand what these influences are saying on a certain psychological level. i think the age range was around 3-5 that these children began to respond to gender influences.

parents do this just as a seemingly natural thing by giving the boys blue clothes, the girls pink clothes, the boy get toy cars, an bulldozers, girls get barbi dolls, an toy cooking things... etc... etc...

the biggest thing of interest would be that it's not until children recognize they're being treated differently that they start to behave differently and start to separate into their different play groups of boys and girls...

so there is at least socialogical research to support the hypothesis that bisexuality is actually a natural state of all humans.

however, once the children are exposed to these influences it would be a very difficult thing to scientifically say whether this gender identity issue would continue into the realm of sexuality.

there's simply too many variables that have already happened that could drastically alter the findings in a study of such. and putting them in a bubble wouldn't be healthy so there's that argument that the findings would be altered due to unhealthy environment.

[Solomon]

also, there's quite a bit of historical data as well to support this hypothesis of bisexuality being the natural state of man and woman kind.

[Rhuth]

the biggest thing of interest would be that it's not until children recognize they're being treated differently that they start to behave differently and start to separate into their different play groups of boys and girls...I used to believe this too. I stopped believing it when I had my own children.

I was a tomboy. Stop laughing! I was back then! You could not get me in a dress. I liked my Tonka trucks. Dolls were only fun while you could still pull out their hair. By far, the best toy in the world was mud.

When I had my daughter, I was bound and determined to not force her into a female stereotype. If she had been a tomboy like me, I would have completely understood her. But no matter how much I showed her how to play with a ball, she inevitably found a tea set, and daintily cooked and cleaned. She did not pick up this behavior from me. She confounded me with her stubbornly feminine ways before she could even talk.

There is definitely something genetically male about my son and female about my daughter. But like JohnnyV started out saying, humans are just too complicated for such a simple answer. I grew up a tomboy, but my daughter taught me the fun of painting my nails, and I have been throwing myself wholeheartedly into femininity ever since. It is more than just choosing to do so to understand my daughter. I really live for a pretty new outfit and matching shoes now. Now my mother is confounded!

My mother is not confounded at my bisexuality. Her main concern is my happiness and whether or not I find it. Not how I find it. She is slightly annoyed that she could not play dress up dolly with me, but my daughter is making up for that now for her.

P.S. Flex... You made my day with that pic of Anita Bryant. That's hilarious!

[Enoll]

Sometimes reading about all this politics stuff makes me want to stick my fingers in my ears and sit in a dark room.
That or buy a small island with a population of my choosing and block out
the outside world.. :tong:

[bi-robin-calif]

You made my day with that pic of Anita Bryant.

Orange juice: it's not just for breakfast!

[Omnivore]

One of the things I find most amusing recently is the depictions of ancient cultures in the movies. The Greeks and Romans, the Japanese all had elements of homosexuality/bisexuality and it was just part of society.

Tales from those cultures, for instance Troy, included bisexuality as just something that was natural, not seen as subnormal.

So, back to my point - anyone seen that depicted recently true to the stories?

Somewhere along the line, we went from having permissive/tolerant (at least sexually) cultures to what we have now. Why?

(disclaimer - this based on my shaky historical knowledge, please feel free to flame/correct me)

[flexuality]

I used to believe this too. I stopped believing it when I had my own children.

I was a tomboy. Stop laughing! I was back then! You could not get me in a dress. I liked my Tonka trucks. Dolls were only fun while you could still pull out their hair. By far, the best toy in the world was mud.

When I had my daughter, I was bound and determined to not force her into a female stereotype. If she had been a tomboy like me, I would have completely understood her. But no matter how much I showed her how to play with a ball, she inevitably found a tea set, and daintily cooked and cleaned. She did not pick up this behavior from me. She confounded me with her stubbornly feminine ways before she could even talk.

There is definitely something genetically male about my son and female about my daughter. But like JohnnyV started out saying, humans are just too complicated for such a simple answer. I grew up a tomboy, but my daughter taught me the fun of painting my nails, and I have been throwing myself wholeheartedly into femininity ever since. It is more than just choosing to do so to understand my daughter. I really live for a pretty new outfit and matching shoes now. Now my mother is confounded!

My mother is not confounded at my bisexuality. Her main concern is my happiness and whether or not I find it. Not how I find it. She is slightly annoyed that she could not play dress up dolly with me, but my daughter is making up for that now for her.

P.S. Flex... You made my day with that pic of Anita Bryant. That's hilarious!

I don't think it's simply a matter of what the influences are AFTER a certain age, it is more the fact that children do not distinguish male/female BEFORE a certain age.

I understand what you're saying Rhuth, boys do gravitate towards "boy toys" and girls do gravitate towards " girl stuff", and there ARE differences in the wiring (so to speak) but I think it is very interesting that this distiction does not seem to exist at birth.

I have 5 kids and the first 4 are only 13 months apart, so bath time was a "gang" event when they were young. Nudity back then was no big deal to these kids and I just didn't have the time to keep the boys from the girls. Hot summer days were spent naked in the wading pool and they had no problem with it....they had no sense of right or wrong about the gender differences.

They didn't start to become awkward around opposite genders until they got to be about 4 or 5 years old. They all played with the same toys until about the same age too....then something seemed to "kick in" where they started making a distinction.

When they started school, this distinction REALLY hit them.

Anyways....I am just trying to point out that it isn't so much the influences that I find interesting....but rather the LACK of distinction of gender that seems to exist from birth until about 4 or 5.

Oh, and glad you liked the picture! lol!

[Solomon]

i'm only offering some information about what i read from a sociology book, and there's probably always exceptions to the rule.

however, i would submit that there's a great deal of factors to consider when putting this to a scientific/ sociological approach. and it's hardly a thing of being able to point to any one given thing to assume a conclusion....

[Solomon]

btw bi-robin, i've been meaning to say this since i first saw it, but nice avatar!

[spartca]

Back in the 1990s, gay rights advocates were delighted to hear about Simon LeVay's brain study, which supposedly "proved" that sexuality was determined by the size of the hypothalamus.

You know, I actually own a copy of Simon LeVay's "The Sexual Brain" - it's a great book!

But what I remember LeVay finding in his research was that sexual orientation is actually a combination of biological predisposition and environmental conditions. In other words, he said being gay was most likely both biological AND a choice...