|
|
|
|
Good Grief Charlie Brown,
Long story – short version:
I am 65, never contemplated the word gay until I was 23, had a great home life with loving parents, (only child) always had an attraction to boys, and sucked at sports plus no interest. Had a girl friend at 20 for about a year. Liked her tits sucked (lol). Outside of you show me yours and I will show you mine, no contact sex until I was in the Navy. I am as straight looking and acting as they come, as they say I am in the closet. I met a guy in the Navy and fell in love. He got out before me. I cried. Through him I met a girl and two years later married her. (Still married 40 years later) I now have 3 children and eight grand children. Over the past 40 years I have had lovers all between the ages of 18 and 30. I have several very good friends who I have known for years they are straight not even bent, but they have never married. So shouldn’t bachelors take some of the heat off us gays? They aren’t procreating either. Ask me anything you like.
Gary
-
Attachment: NAVY ONE.jpg
(Size: 10.27KB, Downloaded 411 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I just want to be clear. The American Psychological Association has removed, I think in 1995, homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. It took it a while, but it did it. Thus I am perturbed, unless you left the word "not" out, that you appear to think that people think of it as a disorder.
Note that I am not stopping you, should you do so, from viewing it as a mental disorder. I also want it noted that I do not think it is one. And we each have a perfect right to our views. I am not going to seek to dissuade you from yours (if they are as expressed in your original post)
I understand the reasons you feel you are gay. The issue is that we can rationalise our lives perfectly well one way or the other. I grew up a model heterosexual, and found I was gay at 13. It was a shock, and an unpleasant one. I also feel my own development was arrested. But I do not label them cause and effect.
Looking over my life I have alwasy "been gay" (rationalisation), but society expected me not to be. Thus I am "not gay" in any manner that is recognisable to others, just to me, and just in my head.
My deity, who must be your deity too, surely, does not make errors. I view myself as havng been born gay for some purpose. Maybe this board is that purpose, who can say? But, if created by a deity, I am as I was created, and am wired up the way I am for a reason.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have absolutely no problem with how other people feel about themselves. I sure know Im not gay by choice (who in their right mind would want to be gay with attitudes like they are). Altho I have the relatives from hell, and my mom has more boy friends than WalMart has stores, I dont feel like anything they did made me gay. I am growing up dislikeing males and femails in my family, but I still want to be with a male. If I have any kind of Mental disorder its because of the way society treats me. As far as having children. there is always adoption. There are thousands of unwanted and unloved children in this world.
I still think its genetic and beyond our ability to change it. Environment might have something to do with it, but for the life of me I cant imagine what it could be. I knew i was gay when I was 12. Looking back I have always enjoyed the company of males. Oh, as screwed up as my family is, no-one has ever laid a hand on me in that way, plus that would make me sick. Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the APA might have removed it in 1973.
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"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>that would be a bit much to think that God has a hand in each person being born.
If he has no personal interest in our wellbeing, why should we assume that it is not possible that one or two people "slipped through the net"? Why should we always assume he has our best interests at heart?
I still don't understand why God allowing someone -- through no fault of their own -- to become gay is not the same as making them gay in the first place. The intentions are the same. The result is the same.
Just playing devil's advocate here.
>man has free will
Okay, man has free will. Yet you've just said that your homosexuality just happened -- you in no way chose it. That doesn't sound like free will, in the context of homosexuality, to me.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I can remember kissing this girl once when I was about 12 or 13 and I did like it; I think at that time in my development I was having normal thoughts about girls. I was, however, the sort of boy who could be easily teased as I took so much to heart. I would be just crushed by comments made to me about how I acted or did things when such comments were not meant to be hurtful or maybe even in a teasing manner. I would simply over react to things. I look back and can see that I had this overwhelming desire to fit into the group and took even slight comments as to my masculinity as being very profound and harsh. I dont think I was ever called gay by anyone. I did develop this thick sheild around me to ignore any kind of teasing. I was very small for my age and always played with kids about 2 years younger than me so I would be able to compete physically with them. I was not the worst player at baseball, but nearly so. I avoided all the things that could expose me as being physically inferior and hid in my own world.
All things that would be considered completely normal in a "straight" child.
And a gay one, too, for that matter. But there is nothing there that screams out to me "Damaging behaviour! Blatantly it will fuck him up for the rest of his life!".
I wonder if you have constructed your elaborate self-justification and religious opinions to justify why you are not completely normal in all other respects? Because you don't actually want to be? Because you want to punish yourself, or you want to see yourself as broken?
>I think I actually am what is termed arrested development as I do not become attracted to guys who are older looking or much beyond their teens.
So what? There's nothing the matter with that. No-one cares what you find attractive (aside from a few very ignorant people): the only requirement is that you remain legal. Even what is legal varies from country to country. Over here the age of consent is 16.
As for societal taboos against homosexuality and all manner of sexual attractions, most are totally stupid and fueled by nothing more than hysteria.
>It is though I had stopped progressing sexually in mid teens.
Whether or not that is true (and I'm inclined to think it doesn't matter), there are lots of people in that position. People who like young-looking guys. You're hardly the only one.
>Well I just wanted to give some insight to my past to let you know it is just a bit more complicated than some.
It's no more complicated than mine. And I'm only 21!
David (Deeej)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont think my belief in a God who had created the first man and women to be "perfect" has much to do with what my mother and father created when they had sex with each other. I think God was the creator of the first humans but not necessarily me directly and the whole human span could have produced some changes from the first model. I dont think God created me directly, only indirectly by virtue of the fact he started things going. The only place most of those who believe in evolution and I differ is how it started in the first place and not that there are changes in the human model.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I dont control the free will of others and thru what they do and say etc they can impact my life. What we do with our free will is not going to have consequences ONLY for us, but for those around us also. In that way I think that what others did around me tended to mold me into what I became and I dont think that is an unreasonable assertion to make.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh believe me Brian I surely never chose what I am either. Just because I cant fix the exact date time and event or series of events that made me what I am does not mean they did not happen. Many of you seem to insist I prove something from the negative which is not reasonable.
I have never met anyone who would choose to be gay and there can be a number of causes for the condition, but I just dont feel God made that happen. In fact I dont believe in any kind of predestination and so I dont feel God knew I was going to be born at such and such a time etc.
Many times we tend to push someone into one mold because we see they dont fit in another one, but they may not fit that next mold either.
I understand clearly what you say here and I do tend to agree with a lot of it as I say above.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to have misinterpreted my previous comment. When I quote a piece of text, I am not specifically finding fault with it; I may be using it to relate to something else you said in that post.
There is nothing unreasonable about asserting that man has free will, in itself -- note that I said "Okay, man has free will." (even though I personally think it is overly facile to say that we have genuine free will).
However, it sounded to me like you are saying that free will leads, through the consequences of our actions, to homosexuality. In other words, you are saying that it is our fault that we are gay (if we are), and not God's or Nature's. I strongly disagree with that.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... homosexuality can only be genetic if it is a direct consequence of your genetic inheritance from your parents. It follows that the matter would be determined at the moment of conception. There's a fair amount of evidence (especially from studies of twins raised separately) that genetic inheritance does have a part to play, but there's a great deal still to be discovered.
In the quote from the Gale Encyclopedia, a distinction is made between 'biological' and 'environmental' factors. This is a little misleading, because in most literature both of these are grouped together as 'environmental'. Environmental factors are normally taken to comprise any influences which are not genetic, so anything happening after conception is regarded as environmental.
Until twenty or thirty years ago, there was a widespread view that having a dominant female parent was a significant factor in male homosexuality. The fact that the increasing number of single-parent families in which a female is the ONLY parent is not apparently accompanied by a corresponding increase in the incidence of male homosexuality cast serious doubts on that theory, and nowadays 'environmental influences' is usually taken to mean influences during pregnancy and in the very early years of life. Such influences are likely to biochemical, and could therefore be just as powerful and irreversible as genetic factors.
Thank you for your indulgence, your honour!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said, I have no problem with whatever. I know this, something had to occure to make me gay, but I have never been molested, beaten (well I have been switched). Nothing brutal or nasty happened. I just dont think my mom touching my cock while she changed my diaper did it. Homosexuals have been very common thru human history. The Greeks really got into it big time. The Romans wernt slouches either. They accepted it as a normal occurance. In Japan it is perfectly ok to be gay. The only really homophobic society is right here in the U.S.A. and were trying ot force this down the throats of other countries. No wonder people in Europe hate us.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have an idea on predestination that you might like. Making the assumption that of course there is a God who is all-knowing and is above the concept of time, I can then surmise that God does know what our actions will be and knows basically everything. Does this mean we don't have a choice in the matter ? No, but God does know what our choices will be. That is to say that yeah, we live our life having free-will and we make choices and whatnot but since those are in fact the choices we make, then God knows them. So I guess what I'm saying is an argument for predestination, but still includes our responsibility in the matter. So we are not at the will of our predestined path, but since that is the path we take, then God knows it. I had a better explanation of this at some point in time when one of my friends who was a theology major mentioned the subject. I beleive he called it the problem with freewill. I'm also not saying that I necessarily am arguing a point, I just thought that you might like my explanation. So take it or leave it.
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"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
electroken wrote:
(snip)
> I have never met anyone who would choose to be gay
(snip)
I seem to be the exception to that: apart from a period of around a year just after puberty when I worried that I didn't seem to be growing out of what I had hitherto assumed (or pretended to myself) was an "adolescent phase", I have never wanted my sexual orientation to be anything other than what it is - ie around 95% gay.
I wouldn't be *me* if I were otherwise: being gay has fundamentally shaped the way I see the world, my politics, my friendships, my career ... my life. In exactly the same way as being a male has: it's something so deep-seated, and so very much part of me, that I don't even consider it most of the time.
If you held out your hands to me and said "in my left hand is a pill to make you straight, and in the right hand is a pill to keep you gay", I'd go the gay route every time ... and that has been true since before I left my teens.
Sure, I've had my moments of saying "all men are bastards" and crying myself to sleep with a broken heart - but I did the same when the one serious relationship I've had with a woman ended: it's just the way I am, not related to my sexuality. Sure, I've been queerbashed (twice, badly enough to need medical attention) ... but I was physically abused as a kid a lot more frequently than that by my father - for no reason at all. Sure, a lot of people have made fun of me - occasionally for being gay, but more often because I take life far to seriously, am far too must of a booklover / intellectual for them to feel comfortable with, and have a total loathing of all forms of competitive sports. I guess that what I'm saying is that most of the bad things in my life have not come from being "out" or from being "gay", but have just come from being "me". And if I balance that against the positive things that have come from being gay, and the two long-term same-sex relationships that I have been privileged to enjoy ... the experience of emotional and physical love - well, if offered the choice to go back and not be gay, or do the same things over again, being gay wins every time.
I know that I've been lucky compared to some, but I honestly don't think it's that unusual ...
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
This is actually a response to all of your posts on this thread, not just the post above.
I'm not sure whether I have mentioned since you began posting regularly that I used to be strongly influenced by religion; my views have changed over the years, much influenced by the encouragement of my early mentors to feel free to question anything and everything and to find my own path. I'm not, therefore, predisposed to deny anything; I just try to have an open mind. When I disagree with you, it's more likely to be on a point of logic than on a matter of belief.
Gotta start with belief, though! I think that in both the Judaic and Christian traditions, it is a basic principle that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. He is everywhere, and though he grants humanity free will, he knows in advance how that liberty will be used or abused. I therefore find it strange that you think that He is not responsible for creating you as you are. I take your point about the analogy with evolution, but it seems to me to be an axiom of belief that if God permits man to evolve genetically it must be because He wishes humanity to change and He knows in advance what that change will entail. In short, I can't reconcile your adhesion to the literal truth of the Bible with your apparent stance on the limits of Divine influence.
Turning to the religious issues surrounding homosexuality, they stem from relatively few biblical references, many of which have an element of ambiguity. The primary condemnations are in Leviticus and in the letters of St. Paul. Now if you believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, I can't argue with you. If however you accept that it was the work of men inspired by God, there are some interesting points to be made. Firstly, whilst there is no consensus as to the date at which the Torah (which includes Leviticus) was written, it is generally agreed that it was written no earlier than the exodus from Egypt and no later than the time of King Josiah. There are many scriptural references, contemporary with Leviticus and subsequently, to the need for the Jews to protect their ethnic identity. The Canaanites, and indeed most of the Greek-inspired world, regarded bisexuality as normal and indeed commendable. What could be more natural than to condemn such practices, which were alien to the Jews? It's interesting to note that there is not a single biblical reference which unequivocably condemns homosexuality rather than bisexuality. Paul, of course, was influenced by Leviticus, but he was also a child of his times, and though bisexuality was still practised in the Roman-dominated world, it no longer met with widespread approval, as it had under the Greeks.
There are, indeed, so many 'ifs' and 'buts' that the religious condemnation of homosexuality can only be seen as a matter of belief rather than an issue of Holy Writ.
So, Ken, why do you torture yourself?
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you know if I had my life to live over I would try to be open I think and just let others know how I felt about boys. I dont know what would have happened to me other than what did, but I sure see what you are saying about how it affected you. It appears maybe that it might not have been as bad as I had imagined it was going to be if I had been forthright with how I was at the time. Yeah I want to think about what you said a bit more and it is something I think may be true for me too. Thanks for the commments.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Many of you seem to insist I prove something from the negative which is not reasonable.
Well, the problem is that proving something from the positive ("it's this way; I think the reason is this; prove me wrong") is totally unscientific and completely useless to anyone except yourself. Which is fine -- you believe what you want to believe -- but don't expect anyone else to be swayed by the force of the argument.
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and have been touched by his Noodly Appendage; that everything was created by Him in a creationistic way; if you can't prove me wrong he must exist.
See? Ridiculous.
>In fact I dont believe in any kind of predestination and so I dont feel God knew I was going to be born at such and such a time etc.
I thought the Christian God was omnipotent and omniscient?
It seems to me that you pick and choose Christian doctrine, yet instead of choosing the parts most relevant to your lifestyle, you choose the ones that make you feel unwanted and "broken". It seems self-destructive to me.
I'm sure you'll have read Cossie's post "Hi, Ken!", but I would seriously recommend you read it again, as well, as he is far more eloquent than I will ever be.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excerpts regarding sexual orientation in the text, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry - A Comprehensive Textbook (3rd Edition) edited by Melvin Lewis
Again, I found some of this information interesting and thought I would pass it on to others. Interesting statistics.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Sexual orientation refers to a person's overall sexual responsiveness to men or women ( Meyer-Bahlberg, 1993). Sexual orientation has four components: (a) imagery (e.g., daydreams, masturbation fantasies); (b) use of erotica, such as magazines; (c) erotic attraction; and (d) actual partner experience. Homosexuality is not a disorder of gender identity. Homosexuality is an orientation that, once adopted, commonly is constant throughout life. Approximately 4% of men and 1% to 2% of women are homosexual (Bell et al., 1981). A smaller percentage describes themselves as bisexuals. Other cultures reveal a similar percentage of homosexuals. There are societies where men are at first exclusively homosexual and then convert to become primarily heterosexual ( Herdt, 1981). Gay (homosexual) men may or
may not be effeminate. As a group, they differ from the rest of the population only in being better educated and somewhat less devoutly religious ( Bell et al., 1981 ).
Adult gay men describe themselves as having felt “different” since early childhood. Homosexual youth usually experience homoerotic fantasies in early adolescence, and this can precipitate identity conflict ( Cass, 1984; Yates, 1983). Heterosexual fantasies also are experienced, and this generates bewilderment ( Bell et al., 1981). During early adolescence, most engage in activities such as manual stimulation with the same and with the other sex. Girls become sexually active at an older age than boys and are more likely to engage in concurrent or sequential heterosexual intercourse ( Rosario et al., 1996). Vacillation, confusion, and emotional upset often persist until a clear homosexual identity is established in early adult life. Gay youth account for almost a third of all adolescent suicides ( Remafedi, 1987).
Bisexual men tend to be more conflicted, alienated, and depressed than gay men. This could be related to greater biological discordance or to greater difficulty in defining an identity in a society that specifies people as only male or only female. Conversely, those individuals who are conflicted may be less able to define themselves as male or female (Lock and Steiner, 1999; Yates, 2000).
Lesbian women report feeling less feminine and less beautiful during childhood. They also report having imagined that they were male, preferring to play boys' games, and being called a tomboy. However, many women who are not lesbian also recall these experiences ( Bell et al., 1981; Whitam and Zent, 1984). Compared with gay men, lesbian women are more flexible and less conflicted about adopting a homosexual role and identity. Lesbian adolescents are less likely to be rejected by peers and they have more social support available. It is not uncommon for girls to experiment with female peers nd for women who were heterosexual during marriage to enter a homosexual relationship after divorce. More women than men claim to be bisexual.
Cross-cultural studies support the importance of biological forces in the genesis of homosexuality. Behavioral prodromata of male homosexuality (e.g., interest in girls' toys, cross-dressing) exist in other cultures studied regardless of how the culture views homosexuality. These prodromata first occur at approximately the same age and are remarkably persistent thereafter (Green, 1978; Pillard and Bailey, 1995). Primates and domestic animals often engage in same-sex sexual activity (Adler, 1997). Homosexual relationships sometimes help the animal survive. In some species, females that engage in sexual activity together are more willing to share food, to forage together, and to groom each other.
Prenatal exposure to increases in estrogenic or androgenic hormones can exert a life-long influence on attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors ( Money, 1975). Women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia not treated before 8 years of age present a feminine gender identity in consonance with the sex of assignment but a masculine pattern of arousal in that they quickly respond to visual and narrative erotic stimuli, experiencing a strong sexual appetite that is localized in the genitals and that leads to masturbation or the pursuit of intercourse with a casual partner ( Ehrhardt et al., 1968; Money, 1965). Forty-eight percent have homosexual dreams or fantasies, and 18% have had homosexual experiences. Women who were treated earlier in childhood demonstrate an increased likelihood of becoming bisexual
(Money and Schwartz, 1977).
There is strong evidence for a genetic component to homosexuality. The concordance for homosexuality is 52% among monozygotic twins, compared with 22% among dizygotic twins (Bailey and Pillard, 1991). Monozygotic female twins demonstrate a 48% concordance, whereas dizygotic twins demonstrate only a 16% concordance for homosexuality (Bailey et al., 1993). A family pedigree study by Hamer et al. (1993) demonstrated that nonsibling increases in homosexual orientation occur mainly in male relatives on the mother's side of the family. This suggests transmission through the sex chromosome. Indeed, researchers have correlated homosexuality with the inheritance of five polymorphous markers at the tip of the long arm of the X chromosome, in the Xq28 region ( Hamer et al., 1993; Turner, 1995). However, more than one gene is likely to be involved because a significant number of monozygotic twins are discordant for homosexuality ( Bancroft, 1994; Meyer-Bahlburg, 1993). The genetic basis for homosexuality is an important reason why children adopted by gay couples are no more likely than the rest of the
population to become gay.
Genes could influence sexuality by changing the organization and structure of the brain or by affecting the production of hormones and transmitters. Minute changes in hormone balance could alter structure and subtly recast attitudes, thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. For instance, testosterone increases and ovarian hormones decrease the development of the corpus callosum, which is larger in men than in women ( Fitch and Denenberg, 1998). This could differentially affect information processing, emotional ambivalence, and anxiety (Leavengood and Weekes, 2000 ). Two interrelated, sexually dimorphic nuclei, the stria terminalis and the medial amygdaloid nucleus, are larger and have denser projections in men. This system influences sexually dimorphic behaviors such as aggression as well as nonsexually dimorphic functions such as social recognition memory ( de Vries and Miller, 1998). The recently discovered human vomeronasal system responds in sex-specific fashion to smell by changing behaviors, adjusting the autonomic nervous system response, and even instigating the release of gonadotropins from the pituitary gland (Monti-Bloch et al., 1998). Clearly, brain dimorphism is enormously complex and has far-reaching effects on cognition, emotion, and behavior.
A boy with a female-configured brain would possess a strong innate bias toward homosexuality. Whether that person would become gay would depend on the strength of the bias (degree of femaleness in the brain), the boy's internal discomfort with becoming a homosexual, and his experience with homophobia in the environment.
Steroid hormones have been found in localized areas of the brain. These hormones are called neurosteroids because they are produced by neurons in the same way that the gonads and the adrenals generate steroids, but independently of the gonads and the adrenals ( Roselli, 1995). Neurosteroids exert their effects locally; they could organize certain areas of the fetal brain toward maleness or femaleness or could affect postnatal behavior directly ( Kabbadj et al., 1993). The existence of this third, independent hormonal pathway could explain why some very masculine-appearing and -acting men are gay ( Yates, 2000).
Sexual orientation in men is not correlated with androgen levels in adolescence or adulthood ( Green, 1978). However, approximately one-third of lesbians show elevated levels of testosterone ( Gartrell et al., 1977), although the levels remain well below the range of normal for men ( Meyer-Bahlberg, 1982). Dorner et al. (1991) suggest that these findings are due to prenatal stress and a congenital deficiency of enzymes involved in steroid synthesis. Adrenocorticotropic hormone administration significantly increases production of the cortisol precursor, 21-deoxycortisol, in gay men and lesbian women compared with nonhomosexual subjects. A similar increase occurs in the mothers of gay men.
Homosexual men are far more likely than other men to be born later on in the birth order and to have more older male siblings ( Blanchard and Bogaert, 1996). Conversely, parents who produce many sons are more likely to produce extremely effeminate or homosexual sons ( Pillard and Weinrich, 1986 ). Several explanations are possible, one of which is based on immunology. Long before a mother gives birth to a boy, fetal cells are circulating in her bloodstream. These persist as long as 27 years after the birth of the child ( Bianchi et al., 1996). The presence of male cells could provoke an immune reaction against Y chromosomal material.Theoretically, this could lower prenatal brain testosterone in later-born boys, thus affecting the structure and function of the brain. Later-born male infants and those with many older male siblings are known to have lower levels of testosterone than first-born male children. Siblings born close together have lower testosterone levels
than those born 4 or more years apart. The longer birth interval would allow the number of fetal cells in the maternal circulation to diminish.
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"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some very interesting stuff there - there are things that I hadn't picked up on through my normal reading (New Scientist magazine usually covers gay topics well, and has a 2-page article on "Same Sex, different rules" in the current issue which is a special issue on "love"). Thanks for posting it: I've obviously got some follow-up reading to do!
However, I did feel that the tone of the excerpts suggested that it was written by a homophobe trying valiantly to overcome his phobia! Full marks for trying, but the level of detachment I'd expect was in places just .... missing.
"Behavioral prodromata of male homosexuality (e.g., interest in girls' toys, cross-dressing). This seems to crop up in a lot of work about gay men not written or edited by a gay man! OK, so there may be some evidence that some sorts of gay men exhibit this ... but if we were *all* interested in "girls toys" and feminine roles, who on earth would we find to f*ck us? Straight men? Duh. The origins of the guys who can only "top" don't seem to be always explicable as having shown an interest in girls toys and then got scared and reacted against a feminine image.
"A boy with a female-configured brain would possess a strong innate bias toward homosexuality." .... "The existence of this third, independent hormonal pathway could explain why some very masculine-appearing and -acting men are gay" Again, the author is letting his value judgements show through. The assumption that gay men are in some sense "female" (because we're sexually attracted to men) too easily spills over into assumptions that we therefore all lie at the camp end of the behavioural spectrum ... the author has a real problem with masculine gay men, and really doesn't even seem to acknowledge the vast majority whose appearance and activity doesn't lie at either extreme.
So, in my view, an interesting and useful review of sources, but the author and editor really do need to learn a bit about value-neutral writing appropriate to a tricky field like sexual orientation.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi David,
I know a lot has been written by psychologists and others about this issue and I agree with NW that bias shows thru a lot.
I just wanted to say that I wouldn't want to use these guys like Mooney to defend any idea that I was born gay. He did some research with twin boys that had absolutely devastating results to the boys and never once (that I know of) has ever shown regret about it nor has he allowed that he could have been wrong. I think you should read a book called "As Nature Made Him" by John Colapinto. I was fairly depressed for some time after reading it. There has been a lot of conclusions drawn from Mooney's work and reports which rely on his research with these two boys. After you read it, you might want to reconsider how sure you are that you are born gay or that a lot of things can be changed. This guy Mooney should have been drummed out of his profession, but that is only my opinion.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for butting in here.
Electroken said:
>There has been a lot of conclusions drawn from Mooney's work and reports which rely on his research with these two boys. After you read it, you might want to reconsider how sure you are that you are born gay or that a lot of things can be changed.
Well, firstly, I assume you are talking about John Money, not Mooney. I know virtually nothing about him myself, and it took quite a bit of searching to find out the correct name.
Secondly, in what way does his work make us reconsider? As I haven't read the book "As Nature Made Him", I assume you can give us a potted summary, and explain how it is relevant? I have heard the terrible story of David Reimer, but as far as I was aware this was more about gender identity and not so much to do with sexuality.
If anything, the fact that Reimer identified as a male and could not be "made" female supports the idea that gender identity (and maybe sexuality) is fixed at birth, and not influenced by environmental factors as we grow up. Is that what you were trying to say? Going on everything you have said so far it sounds like the opposite of what you believe (that you think you inadvertently made yourself gay).
From what I can gather (from Wikipedia), Money's other research into gender roles doesn't sound at all conclusive in regard to sexuality, as (as we are all aware) there is no clear link between sexuality and gender identification in homosexuals. (I.e. Gay men are not always effeminate, lesbians are not always butch.)
I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the point you were making; I am genuinely interested.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
the guy who experimented with the Reimer twins made them simulate sexual acts together, with the entire boy in the male role and the emasculated one in the female role.
It seems he was not simply studying them, but filfilling some sort of macabre fantasy
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>the guy who experimented with the Reimer twins made them simulate sexual acts together, with the entire boy in the male role and the emasculated one in the female role.
Which guy? Money? Do you have a source for that?
>It seems he was not simply studying them, but filfilling some sort of macabre fantasy
According to whom? I can imagine that if he has publicly acknowledged it was some sort of macabre (presumably sexual?) fantasy then he would have been locked up for child abuse in today's climate. If he hasn't it sounds suspiciously like libel.
Sorry, Timmy -- that doesn't really help answer my question!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
my source is a TV documentary aired in the UK about 2 years ago. I can't answer the rest of your question
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excuse me!!! ah hummmm. Is this the doctor that screwed up a circumcision on one twin and masde the choice ot make him a girl, gave him hormones and it wouldnt work. He grew up to be a boy with a girls body. What gets me is that the father didnt kill him.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
Money's ideas relating to gender and gender identity formation have come under criticism. Money maintained that a child's gender identity is fluid up to a certain age, after which this gender would become consolidated and more-or-less immutable. This theory was applied in the case of a male child, David Reimer, whose penis was destroyed due to a botched circumcision. This became to be known as the John/Joan case. The child was subsequently sexually reassigned as female. However, even though David Reimer was raised as a girl and never knew his early history, he behaved in a masculine way appropriate to a boy while he was a young child. Later attempts to socialize him as a girl failed. Money knew this yet never revealed this information for years, and his decision to "cover up" the facts of the case caused Money great difficulty in the medical community
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If I had been the boys father I would have strangled Money with my bare hands. the parents were just as bad as him for lettin ghim get away with it. I guess its the redneck coming out in me. Im having a Teen moment. Excuse me.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you Brian in those emotions..teen or not makes no diff in this case!! It's just plain sick!!
Maybe it was the same sick doctor who did the operation on a hermaphradite that I posted about in one of my earliest posts. That kind of arbitrary gender assignment is so cruel and the natural tendancies of the child should be allowed to show them selves first ..operations can be done later.. how sick!!
Just goes to show some of the so-called intelligent people in this world are glaringly devoid of some common sense & compassion.
Alexander Graham Bell was another & all that agreed with their ideas about deafness.. they conspired to get sign language taken out of schools & instead forced deafs to try to conform to hearing people's standards with large bulky hearing aids, rigoous training in speeach & lipreading (which only a very snmall minority of deafs can do weel enuf to get alond by that means alone..)
My ex was a victim of their stupid teachings..tho born deaf, her parents were told sign language was bad for deafs & she should be forced to speak & read lips.. Thus she had no real natural language for the first 13 years of her life.. tho she did master the english language fairly well, it wasn't her native tongue.. It's a hearing people's language, you idiots!! Sign language is a true language with all the syntax, etc of real languages..
Stupid university educated idiot doctors!! no wonder i prefer naturopaths (NDs) herbalists, dieticians & other natural doctors. The alopathic doctors have their head up their butts when it comes to understanding the natural basics of human life.
Do i sound opinionated?? oh, sorry.. Guess i am! I had thought to start a thread about the state of healthcare today in the so-called advanced societies of the world..
Teddy 
Life's a trip * Friends help you through * Adventure on life!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I've been working on a response for about an hour-and-a-half, and the 'illegal operation' window has just popped up and frozen - and then deleted - everything I'd written! I'll try again tomorrow - but in the meantime, I share NW's view that the encyclopedia article is biased - but I'd go further and say that it is appallingly uninformative and a complete and utter cop-out by the compilers - so there! (Kicks computer across room and retires to bed with large glass of malt whisky!)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should join Deeej and me and switch to Linux, at least most of the time.
(Sorry about your toes. A computer has pretty hard edges.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is one of the most horrific cases of child abuse I have ever heard -- all the more so because the doctors involved apparently thought they were doing the right thing.
I am very suspicious of psychology for that reason: because it is so hard to get actual proof, people pretend that their unproven theories have validity, and make horrible, life-changing decisions based on them. Then only a few years later, the theories are debunked, but there is no way those who have been affected by them can be put back to how they were.
I cannot believe that, having ruined David Reimer's penis, his doctors thought it would be better if they castrated him too. It shows complete lack of respect for any wishes that he might ever have to have children of his own. It is quite obvious that as a woman he would never have been able to have children of his own.
I agree, Brian: if I'd been the father I'd have difficulty preventing myself from strangling Money. I don't think that's a redneck instinct at all -- it's a universal paternal one. Unfortunately, I am not convinced at any point it was clear to the parents that Money was an idiot and totally wrong, until perhaps David was 13 or 15, by which time it was far, far too late (either to strangle him or to block his "treatment").
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Ken,
I, too, believe in God, and I'm sorry that you've got the impression that believing on God 'is thought to be a mental disorder by most who frequent here'. I haven't been here for long, but one of the reasons why I lurk around here, and write a few silly words now and then, is that I know that we respect each other for who and what we are. (See the answers by e.g. JFR, Timmy, Deeej, NW and Cossie.)
You say 'I do not think he made me this way.' When I was young I suppressed the gay part of me, I married, and we were given two wonderful children. The marriage ended in a divorce, but I still consider myself lucky, now being a father and a grandfather. When, at last, I had the courage to accept myself for who I am, I went through a mental process of re-playing moments of my life, which confirmed, repeatedly and beyound doubt, that I am gay. Some day scientists may find a definitive answer to why people are gay, bi or straight. So far there are speculations and little more than that, and your guess is indeed as good as mine. But is it really important? The horrific story about David Reimer confirms what we already know, that tampering with a person's sexual identity is terribly wrong. Why, then, shouldn't you and I accept ourselves for who we are? I am sure that God does, and that he loves both you and me.
.. then I would not be able to believe in Him anymore .. The reason why I believe is not that I have insight into all mysteries and know the answers to all questions. There are lots of extremely difficult questions that will remain unanswered to both believers and non-believers. I am not even sure that the questions why I am gay, or whether it was God's intention, are among the most important ones that I have at present:
My youngest brother is suffering from myelomatosis (uncurable bone marrow cancer). Chemoterapeutic treatment brought him back to life two and a half years ago, but he still has it, and sooner or later it is going to kill him, unless there is a surprise for us, brought about by God, medical invention, or both. One of the good things that has come with it, which both he and I have benefitted from, is a new closeness and friendship between us, and an exchange of words of brotherly love that our parents never taught us.
One of my young students, one of our nicest, gentlest and most charming boys, is now worried sick. His eyes, usually sparkling with life, reflect sadness and sorrow. Not long ago his parents split up, and now his mother is critically ill. It feels so unfair, and I don't understand why God should want things like this to happen.
To me there is only one valid answer to all this: What I choose to do about the things that are within my reach, including how I treat myself.
This earlier post more than covers what I want to say:
http://forum.iomfats.org/w-agora/index.php?site=forumiomfatsorg&bn=forumiomfatsorg_placeofsafety&key=1110727369&action=view
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey David sorry I couldn't reply to you earlier, but you have apparently reached the same conclusion about this that I had. You and I agree about this one I think. I read the book about this case and had some hard times repressing my rage towards Dr.Money.
It might interest you to know that when David Reimer confronted this when he was about 13 and learned the truth about himself, he insisted on being changed back into a boy as much as was possible. He refused to see Dr Money again but was forced by his parents a couple of times. He was completely uncooperative with the Doctor from that time on.
At one time he discovered who the doctor had been who had botched the circumcision and went to visit him carrying his father's pistol with him with the intent to kill him. He found the doctor in his basemment office of this hospital and realized at once that the doctor didnt know at first who he was. He proceeded to tell the doctor who he was because he wanted to make the doctor know who it was that was about to kill him. When the doctor realized it was the boy he botched that circumcision on, he started to cry and begged forgiveness from him. David realized that this guy had been feeling some real remorse about it for all those years and that it was an unfortunate accident.
The book was really emotional to read and so if you get the chance, go find it at the library. Sorry if I initially mispelled the name, but I thought I had copied the name of the book and author ok.
The parents went along with this as they were told it was the best way to deal with what had happened. I dont really blame the parents too much in this as each time they went to the "experts" with their concerns that maybe this wasn't working out right, they were told it was just their inadequate way they went about dealing with their daughter. That it would be ok if they were just more patient, etc. I think really that the whole family was a victim here. Note also that not only did David take his own life, so did his brother a few years later.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Second time lucky, I hope! This time I’ve written the response in Word and pasted it across; I’m certainly not typing it a third time!
I’ve already said that I agree entirely with NW’s suggestion that the writer seems to be having difficulty in presenting the information in a balanced and impartial way. I would however go further; a textbook purporting to summarise current research needs to distinguish much more clearly between statistical information and ‘conclusions’ which are little more than tentative suggestions about what the research might mean. In this field there is relatively little hard information and a great deal of speculation. That, of course, is true of other scientific disciplines – but in most fields of research speculation remains mere speculation until it can be supported by further and deeper research.
Conclusions based upon US research need to be interpreted with especial care, for the simple reason that in the United States views on homosexuality are very strongly polarised. It is difficult to see how a research project funded by the religious right or carried out in a University or other research facility controlled by the religious right could be regarded as wholly free from bias. The same is of course true of research linked to the Gay community or its supporters. Unhappily, it isn’t a topic which attracts much research enthusiasm from academics who are not pre-disposed to one side or the other.
Furthermore, although the fiasco of the Reimer twins is not specifically mentioned, other published work by Money IS cited. This, to me, is pretty incredible. Money published ‘research’ using the Reiner twins in support of his view that gender could be engineered, despite the clearly contradictory evidence of David Reimer’s rejection of his female persona from a very early age. He saw what he wanted to see, and ignored what he didn’t want to see. His behaviour was at the very least grossly incompetent; most would say that it was wholly unethical. Against this discredited background, does it make sense to rely on his earlier published work?
Overall, I don’t think that there’s much meat in the sandwich contained in the textbook. The one really significant statistic is the disclosure that the concordance for homosexuality is 52% among monozygotic twins, compared with 22% among dizygotic twins (Bailey and Pillard, 1991). The figures for female twins are similar (48% and 16% respectively). Translating into everyday English, if one male identical twin is gay, there is a 52% probability that the other twin will also be gay, but if they are male fraternal (non-identical) twins this probability is only 22%. There are of course several relevant questions not answered in the textbook. Were the twins in the study separated at birth or brought up together? At what age was homosexuality regarded as established? Nevertheless, assuming that the criteria in each study were identical, the results constitute pretty convincing evidence that there is a genetic component in homosexuality. Equally, however, the fact that there is a 48% probability that a gay identical twin will NOT have a gay twin brother demonstrates that genetics cannot be the only factor – identical twins have identical genetic inheritance. So there must also be an ‘environmental’ factor – something occurring after conception - as well. We are left with a possible hypothesis not mentioned in the text – that genetics may create a predisposition to homosexuality, but an environmental factor is required in order to ‘throw the switch’. What further research has been conducted in this area? If there is none – why?
One paragraph of the textbook begins with this sentence: “Adult gay men describe themselves as having felt ‘different’ since early childhood.” There’s no attribution for this statement, and I am aware of no scientific basis for it. Certainly some do, and have said as much in this forum, but many others don’t become aware of their orientation until puberty or even beyond. Many str8 kids don’t experience sexual attraction until puberty, though some certainly do have sexual urges at a much earlier age. Why, then, should this factor be seen as significant in differentiating homosexuals?
To establish the true causes of homosexuality, the research needs to be expanded horizontally; are the conclusions drawn validated by similar studies in other cultures and other countries? The conclusions also need to show vertical integrity – that is, they must not be inconsistent with what we know from the historical record. The genetic make-up of mankind has been pretty well constant for many thousands of years. The article quotes the percentage of homosexuals as 4% (a figure which has been challenged in recent years) and goes on to say that an even smaller percentage is bisexual. So the aggregate must by inference be somewhere between 5% and 7%. It must follow that the remaining 93% to 95% are exclusively heterosexual. How can these figures be reconciled with the position in Ancient Greece around 2500 years ago? Greeks were meticulous recorders, and we are told that at the time of Alexander the Great the average age of a male at marriage was 30-32, whilst the average age of a female was 12-14. Though it is hard to imagine that there was not a fair amount of heterosexual dalliance, we are told that the vast majority of males were bisexual, and entered into same-sex relationships as a matter of course in their youth, many continuing to do so throughout their lives. That doesn’t sound like a tiny percentage, does it? In fact, it strongly suggests that social acceptance or opposition has a very material influence upon the percentage of the population which is willing to admit same-sex attraction. Surely it must significantly affect the numbers willing to admit such attraction to themselves, let alone to prying researchers?
You’ll have gathered by now that I’m not impressed with the textbook – but if you disagree with anything I’ve said don’t hesitate to say so!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Whoah! - What he said!!
(Malt Whisky must b brain food.)
Cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie,
You never cease to amaze me.
Best wishes,
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Bad scientists doing bad science.
In the Victorian era there were no end of "doctors" roaming the halls promoting useless treatments and useless paraphanaelia claiming to treat and heal all sorts of illnesses....
Before that there were snake oil peddelars....
As long as there is an agenda there will be a theory along with a witchdoctor to plaquate it.
In the 60's, electro-shock therapy and ice immersions and sometimes labotomy, coupled with thorazene and other drugs were administered with all the flourish and pomp and circumstance of a three ring circus.
All done in the name of progress in science.
All done with no good results.
Sooooooooo........ Today, you all can bitch and moan about what happened.... You can render opinion on the travesty of the culture that allowed these practices to flourish and prosper.... But, unless you road that pony you have not one iota of a clue as to what that ride was like.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
(snip)
> Sooooooooo........ Today, you all can bitch and moan about what happened.... You can render opinion on the travesty of the culture that allowed these practices to flourish and prosper.... But, unless you road that pony you have not one iota of a clue as to what that ride was like.
Of course that's true, Marc: none of us who have not experienced it can know what it was like, any more than I can know what it was like to be labelled with the infamous pink triangle in the Camps. Or to experience such rejection by friends and family that suicide is seen as the only way out. We have all had our own rides - some rougher than others.
But what matters to me is not that history, but how - out of the empathy that I hope we can all feel for ALL those who have suffered in whatever way for their sexual orientation - we can best prevent such abuses.
This really isn't a problem of science - be it good science or bad science. Science gives us understanding of how-to. It DOES NOT tell us if we should. That's why most research institutions have Ethics Committees or similar, and why courses on ethical considerations are increasingly required for science students at University level. And that - above all - is why my criticism of the extract focussed on the value-laden language it showed: such disguised moral judgenents have NO PLACE WHATSOEVER in a textbook of that nature.
Science & Technology have (probably) given us the power to extinguish all life on this planet through saturation atomic bombing. It really doesn't matter if the science is "good" (the bombs will do this) or "bad" (some life may survive) - the attempt to exinguish all life would be immoral regardless of the science (IMO)! Similarly with homosexuality: the important debate is not whether we *can* change sexual orientation, but whether we *should want to or attempt to*, and what steps (if any) we as a society think it appropriate to take to ensure freedom from any such attempts.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
