|
|
|
|
I can see we're not going to agree on this.
>In the victorian era the sight of an ankle was considered to be erotic. But it was not a fetish item.
I beg to differ. Have you actually read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism ?
"Sometimes, whole cultures can develop the fetish to such an extent that it is no longer perceived as a fetish, but merely as a normal sexual desire; for example late-Victorian England's ankle fetish"
Please stop telling me that a fetish only applies if it is "abnormal" behaviour. Everyone has fetishes. Just because you have pre-conceived ideas of what a fetish is, and hence refuse to accept anything that doesn't fit into your conception, doesn't mean you are right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Fucked up............. no you only enjoy life but since your main turn on is guys then you are gay...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a book written on the early experiences of people who consider themselves to be gay (may also include people who are straight, I do not recall at the moment but it's main focus was homosexuality) called, "...And Then I Became Gay". Basically, it seems people kind of always know that they are different then their peers or they find this out in and around the onset of puberty. I really would recommend this book as it's an interesting read, goes into all the sociology and looks at previous studies into the subject. I wish I had it on hand but it seems as though I left it in a storage unit in Florida (I am in Oklahoma at the moment).
My experience is that up until around 6th grade (around the time I was 12-13 I suppose) I found myself obsessively looking at other boys armpits as well as their arms and legs. This was the first indication I was gay looking back on things that I can figure. Up until, and past that point I suppose, I considered myself entirely straight. I had a crush on my kindergarten teacher intern and I wanted to bring her roses when she left. I was quite the ladies man at 5. I did mess around with another guy at age 10-11 but we both said we where practicing for when we got women and I was worried the whole time that the experience was going to make me gay. I'm positive it didn't. If there was any point that I "learned" to be gay it would have been when the site I went to for pornography (I was trying to find out what the allure was...) ran out of straight pornography and the only thing that was left was gay. At the time though I thought it was kind of disgusting, due to the fact that it was gay. Later on, I was curious what uncircumsized penises looked like so I searched that out (which actually took me a really long time to actually figure out what they looked like). To make this account even more scattered, during seventh grade I was pretty sure I was gay (although I didn't admit that to myself entirely) and was definately checking out guys in the locker room. Wait, there might have been an earlier indication that I was gay that I had forgotten earlier, around 4th grade I have this image of one of my freinds in boxer briefs forever ingrained in my mind. That may have been due to the fact that I had never seen boxer briefs before though. Wow, this post is scattered, I'm sorry. I would clean it up but that may just end up ruining it. Anywho, I would count myself into the group who first showed signs of homosexuality in and around the onset of puberty.
I have a theory which may or may not be even remotely true, but it seems as though usually people who find out they are gay earlier, seem to be attracted to older guys, and the people who found out at the onset of puberty seem to be attracted to younger guys. This theory comes out of the limited accounts I have heard but seems to hold true.
Oh, one thing that I find funny is that my dad was extremely worried when I was obsessed with cooking when I was really young. I had all of these cooking and food toys and he was worried that they where going to make me gay. He was(is?) pretty homophobic. The reason for the question as to whether he is still homophobic is because my sexuality just isn't really acknowledged around him it seems (although he knows). I did watch the movie Rules of Attraction with him the other day and that was only just slightly awkward.
Well, I think I've rambled enough,
David
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Help me figure this out.a while back I heard some doctor on a radio show, one of those question and answer shows. A caller said that she was concerned that her grandson was gonna be gay. she said that he was very effiminate and played with dolls and was very non agressive. the doctor said that there was a marker gene, that would pre-dispose a boy to be gay. He did say that not everyone who had this gene would become gay but they would be effiminate and pre-disposed. I got a neighbor who runs a small daycare. there is this 3 year old boy. when the other boys are, well, being boys and being kinda rough, I have noticed that he shys away from the rough part. He is also very effiminate. I have heard befor that there was a gene, called a marker gene that could be tested for. There was a big uproar for a while that they would use this to screen out and abort babies that had this gene. also heard that it was carried by the male and not the female. My mom will tell anybody up front that when I was small, you could put adress on me and couldnt tell I wasnt a girl. Im not sure how I should take that,but.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The doctor was wrong. Or lying.
I'm not convinced that anyone has proven a link between genetics -- and certainly a single, specific gene -- and homosexuality.
Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation , especially the section on "Correlations with matriarchal lineage, birth order, and female fertility".
Various people have proposed theories that give a genetic basis to sexual orientation, but as far as I know they are just that -- theories. As things stand at the moment, it's not even possible to gain experimental evidence to lend credence either way. Genetics is one of the most complicated areas of biology, and it is still a very imprecise science.
Even if it were possible to identify a gene, I suspect that the most it would do is indicate a predisposition. Sexuality is so complicated and fluid that there is no way it could be controlled simply by a single "yes/no" gene.
I really dislike it when doctors "dumb down" and state fringe medical theories as if they are facts. Sometimes they themselves are ignorant too -- there are plenty of stupid doctors around. And even amongst the best doctors, if a subject is not a particular doctor's specialty then the chances are he/she won't know much more than a well-informed layman.
Unfortunately, doctors have agendas too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
There would have been a huge media fuss if the doctor had been right. There would be preachers wall to wall doing more comdemming, and the world would be in uproar. Chat shows would have wall to wall gay men sayimg how dreadful it is, and blue rinsed ladies saying that God's Will (or their will) can now be carried out
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>There would have been a huge media fuss if the doctor had been right. There would be preachers wall to wall doing more comdemming, and the world would be in uproar. Chat shows would have wall to wall gay men sayimg how dreadful it is, and blue rinsed ladies saying that God's Will (or their will) can now be carried out
>There would be preachers wall to wall doing more comdemming
Knowing the nature of religious zealots, I can believe that this would happen, but it's very counter-intuitive. If anything, you'd expect them to realise
(a) that it's not something that people can choose
(b) that it's not a peversion, but that God deliberately made people that way -- and who are we to question his purpose?
>blue rinsed ladies saying that God's Will (or their will) can now be carried out
Are these the same blue rinsed ladies who say that the bible is always right and science usually wrong? That there's no such thing as evolution? But they would still agree with that part of genetics?
Even if they did, would they be recommending abortion of "gay" fetuses? Even the most closed-minded Christian bigot should recognise that that is hardly a very ethical attitude. And most of the same people have serious problems with genetic engineering as well.
>Chat shows would have wall to wall gay men sayimg how dreadful it is
Why? It does not make much difference to me whether the cause of gayness is genetic or environmental. In fact, it is easier for it to be genetic. Otherwise one spends altogether too much time wondering if one did something wrong, and whether one is somehow a bad person, for letting oneself become gay.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
An ankle is indeed a fetish item.......
OOoooohhhh...... the curves....... the feel of it!
And when you finish with one....... there is another just on the other side....
Ankles ankles.......
I need a cold drink!
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
The trouble is, I know I'm inclined to write dissertations, and sometimes my conscience makes me over-react!
On re-reading my post, I realise that the last bit is rather ambiguous. What I was trying to say was that the other 'preferences' mentioned in Timmy's earlier post were pretty clearly 'learned responses', and that grouping them with sexual orientation necessarily implied that this, too, might be a learned response. That conclusion would be manna from heaven to the likes of 'Love in Action'!
My view on what actually causes homosexuality in a given individual is entirely empirical, and on that basis my answer can only be 'Don't know'. Over the years I have read most of the published research, including some pretty novel propositions, but far too much of the research is either ambiguous or flawed. By ambiguous research I mean the kind that draws inferences which are not clearly supported by clinical evidence; by flawed research I mean research commissioned or carried out by gay or homophobic principals. The only firm conclusion to which I have been drawn is that gender preference, as JFR suggests, is likely to be fixed by the age of four or five. That doesn't of course mean that every individual will live according to that preference, but those who do not are possibly susceptible to a degree of psychological trauma at some point in their lives.
I don't know whether homosexuality involves a genetic inheritance. If, as suggested elsewhere, it were dependent upon a male-transmitted gene, then there must be a strong statistical probability that homosexuality would ultimately die out in a tolerant society, because males carrying the gene would be less likely to breed. Somehow that seems an unlikely proposition! There are several other possibilities involving physiological stimuli after conception, either before or after birth. This may or may not be the answer, but - if it is - it cannot reasonably be regarded as a 'learned response' because the individual has not experienced any sexual activity in acquiring the preference.
So, in summary, my position is that I don't subscribe to the genetic view because there is an absence of convincing evidence. Equally, I do not think that homosexuality can be a learned response for the reason just given. I simply don't accept that these are the only alternatives, and until stronger proof emerges I will remain among the floating voters.
Incidentally, if I may tack on a quick response to Timmy's comment on the fetish topic, I accept that the meaning of words changes over time - the development of language has been a lifelong interest of mine, and the changes are much faster than most people imagine. There is, however, a difference between change in the popular meaning of a word and misuse of that word. I am well aware from the legal aspects of my profession that there must be an arbiter to whom the law can turn to establish the current meaning, and in British English the alternative Holy Grails are the Oxford Dictionary and Chambers' Dictionary. Both of those weighty tomes are still sticking with the clinical definition as an abnormal stimulus, or object, of sexual desire. Thus a preference for breasts and vaginas in a 2:1 ratio cannot be a fetish because it is so widespread (compare with Victorian ankles, discussed elsewhere in this thread), but an ABNORMAL preoccupation with breasts (for example, inability to ejaculate unless sucking a breast) is NOT normal and thus qualifies as a fetish. And of course BDSM is only truly a fetish if the participant derives sexual pleasure from the experience; otherwise, it is simply deviant or obsessive behaviour.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if they did, would they be recommending abortion of "gay" fetuses? Even the most closed-minded Christian bigot should recognise that that is hardly a very ethical attitude. And most of the same people have serious problems with genetic engineering as well.
You must realize as well that fundamentalist christians, to use a term from 1984, often times practice doublespeak.
I mean, look at the death penalty that most fundamentalist christians are for. Doesn't always make a whole lot of sense. All depends on what the person in the pulpit says. If you would like to get more insight into fundamentalist christianity, lookup John Hagee.
It's always the old to lead us to the war
It's always the young to fall
Now look at all we've won with the sabre and the gun
Tell me is it worth it all
~Phil Ochs "I Aint Marching Anymore"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What!!!! My Cossie writting dissertations and over-reacting? No never!
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
