|
|
jleo71
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
The tectonic plate and evolutionary theories are just theories. But there is so much evidence in favor of them that they are the two most accepted theories on the planet. There are some things that can never be proven. But to confuse the scientific use of the word theory with the common one is a big mistake, Mark.
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
That would just about sum it up for me, NW. We have to look at all the people who do gay sex for a living but go home to a partner of the opposite sex after they are done. We can't label them as gay or even bi if they are not really into it as a personal preference.
Leo
BTW, I don't know how this comes to you but I get it from webmaster@. Therefore I don't see who is posting unless I actually click on the link to respond. Which I don't really wish to do if I am not responding. So if you folks could sign your posts it would make it easier for me. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Mark, what country do you live in. In my many years, I have travelled in many circles but never have I known any circle where it was cool to be gay.
Leo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
The way the board works is really as a board. It has the subscription facility so you can get stuff by email, yes, but it is mainly intended for people to browse as a board. I don;t think you'll ever persuade anyone to sign their posts 
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
I agree, Timmy. Accepting that you are gay doesn't make you any more gay than you were before you accepted it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Thanks, Timmy. I guess I will have to change my subscription to use it as a board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor I. But, of course, I'm not gay myself, so how could I know?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I live in Ohio, USA......
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
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Well, not yet anyway.....
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
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Thats about it......
Yup....
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
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I am not confusing the use of the word "theory" with any alternate meaning....
I mean it as it would be used in a scientific process....
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
I live in FL but have lived in NYC, Dayton, Viginia Beach VA, Wilmington DE, Philly, Roanoke VA, and many other places. Never ran into anyone who thought being gay was cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Then you know that some theories are not provable but can offer enough evidence as to not be considered theoretical but ALMOST fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Then perhaps you should expand your field of experiences.....
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
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Almost......
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
They have been expanded as far as you can imagine, Mark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Perhaps......
But then.....
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that I've experienced circles where it was specifically cool to be gay, but there have certainly been times when it was cool to be bisexual. London in the very early 70s (post David Bowie of the "Ziggy" period, London in the mid-to-late 1980s - the whole Philip Salon / Boy George / Cabaret Piccadilly scene. And - I am led to understand (although I don't have personal knowledge) among some of the more extreme students at attending fashion and design courses in London - at least, I've heard complaints that such fashionable gay establishments as Ku-bar are becoming full of such people.
Personally, I don't have any problem with people defining themselves as bisexual, or indeed people who are primarily straight experimenting with gay sex. But I do think that in such cases honesty is even more important than usual, and particular care is needed not to misled gay men encountered in "gay" spaces.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Gay/Bi/Str8 matter seems to be an extremely individualistic decision that each of us makes or doesn’t make at some point in our lives.
I have read all that has been written here on the subject.
Call me what ye may but what you call me won’t make me that.
I think aside from everything else mentioned here, each males mind has a lot to do with if/when/how he perceives himself. The mind is a marvelous thing some can use there minds to protect them from what they don’t want to know. Keep them from being hurt by what others say or do. View there actions in a manner that makes them acceptable to them.
In other words rationalize there lives. I am not sure I conveyed what I am thinking but hopefully a few of you will explain it better.
I have never asked any of my male lovers nor have they volunteered if they were Gay or Bi. I am sure most of them would say they were str8. The old I’m str8 but my boyfriends gay.
I can only speak for myself but I am sure this fits many guys. When I got married in the 60’s my knowledge of gay and bi was virtually zero. It wasn’t until I got a computer did I learn that there were others like me. Much too late to do anything about my past choices. I am married and a father and married and a father I will stay.
Gary
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Ah, I see. It was cool to be around gays not to be gay. I'm sure many people experimented, how else could one explain all those miracle cures. LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every fact is actually an "almost fact". Nothing is absolutely proveable: the best you can get is very, very likely, which is also the case for the best theories. Those theories that can be tested again and again and are never falsified eventually become classified as facts. There really isn't a lot of difference between them.
Not sure how this is related, though.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... but there don't seem to be any real conclusions.
I agree entirely with NW that the '60 minutes' extract was misleading, and that the purported research upon which it was based is not widely accredited and accepted. There is - as I've said many times - a woeful lack of research into the causes of homosexuality, and much of the research which has been undertaken is suspect because it was funded by sources which are clearly biased. I reviewed the available evidence a few weeks ago, so that I could reply intelligently to another post, but I can't find the notes I made and despite half-an-hour's browsing I can't find the damn' post, either! But it's there somewhere, within the last three months or so!
In the earlier post, I quoted accurate figures (which I can't remember exactly), but the aggregate research into the incidence of homosexuality in identical twins, as compared with fraternal twins and untwinned siblings, so far as possible using children separated at birth, showed that where one identical twin was gay, there was something like a 50% probability that the other would also be gay. The corresponding figure for fraternal twins was not much more than half that percentage, and that for untwinned siblings was lower still. So the only logical conclusion is that there is a significant genetic element, because identical twins have an identical genetic inheritance.
Though this is probably an over-simplification, if we attribute the tendency to a single gene carried by one parent, fraternal twins and untwinned siblings have only a 50:50 chance of inheriting the same gene. There is of course only a 50:50 chance that identical twins will inherit that gene - but if one does, so will the other. In any event, the fact that even between identical twins the correspondence is not 100% suggests that there must also be a non-genetic factor in the process. Whether that is purely biochemical, or the result of environmental factors, has yet to be established. So Saben's nightmare vision of designer babies, guaranteed to be heterosexual, may yet come to pass.
As NW also remarked, there is a clear distinction between homosexuality and transgender behaviour, and no evidence to suggest an interconnection - though I agree that it seems logical to suppose that a boy with feminine instincts, or a girl with masculine instincts, may find a homosexual relationship to be more natural and fulfilling.
Moving on to Marc's proposition, I think we are losing each other in semantics. In terms of common understanding of the word, the point at which an individual 'becomes' gay is certainly arguable, but ALL propositions, including Marc's own, are simply theories. Whether it is necessary to 'ring the bell' is - and can only be - a matter of opinion.
Obviously, an individual's own experience will influence his point of view. Marc has lived a gay lifestyle throughout his life, and is rightly proud to have done so. Several of the other regular posters here have admitted an attraction to other males, but have never acted upon it. What makes this messageboard attractive to them is the opportunity it affords to come into contact with like-minded individuals. Marc speaks from his own experience; I can only speak from mine. By his criterion, I'm certainly gay; I started a little later than he did, having 'dallied' with a couple of girls between the ages - that is, MY ages! - of seven and eleven. I think that I was just basically horny, but at twelve I had my first sexual contact with another male, and I was hooked! I was actively gay for the next fifteen years, going through numerous short-term relationships and a couple of longer-term relationships, one of which, like Timmy's 'John' became something of a lasting obsession. So I clearly qualify as a bell-ringing gay. But I was a child of my times; I was attracted to the 'idea' of a family and when my second longer-term relationship ended I slowly drifted away from the gay scene. Eventually, I married a girl whom I love very much, though if I were to be honest that love may never have reached the heights of passion I felt in some of my gay relationships. We have two children, now in their twenties, and I can say without any reservation that bringing up my kids was the most satisfying experience I have ever had in my life. I gave a commitment when I married, and I have no intention of renaguing on that commitment, nor do I regret making it. I neither seek nor want a gay relationship. But, like Timmy - in fact, influenced by Timmy - I decided that I could not maintain a 'Jekyll and Hyde' existence for ever, and I told my wife that, though I loved her very much, I was instinctively gay and that I needed contact with other gays, though without any sexual involvement. I won't pretend that it was roses all the way, but we survived; the fact that her favourite cousin is gay probably helped!
There is a purpose behind these personal disclosures - which on the whole I prefer not to make! I have become close friends with several other guys whom I have met through this site. Many of them are late acknowledgers of their gay inclinations. And it is absolutely obvious to me that though our backgrounds may be radically different, the way we feel today is as near as dammit identical. So - I find it very difficult to accept that if I am gay, they are not - or vice versa.
Finally, I have to say that I agree with Marc about 'fashion' gays. They are not a new phenomenon; I have personal experience of them since the 1970s. I'm not sure that they necessarily consider themselves to be 'cool', but they are certainly there solely for their own gratification. I don't think that, as gays, we have a right to discriminate against bisexuals but, regardless of sexual orientation, successful relationships are built upon honesty, integrity, commitment and respect. I have been 'used' - possibly due to my own naivety - but it wasn't pleasant and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone else.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Cossie said.......
Moving on to Marc's proposition, I think we are losing each other in semantics. In terms of common understanding of the word, the point at which an individual 'becomes' gay is certainly arguable, but ALL propositions, including Marc's own, are simply theories. Whether it is necessary to 'ring the bell' is - and can only be - a matter of opinion.
An opinion is a fluid thing.... It can be altered, ammended, edited and reconfigured as circumstances allow.....
But, once one takes the action..... Makes the conscious decision to take that last step which crosses forever the line there is no turning back.
One may (as you did) drift away from the gay scene.... One may dally only once.... But that once is forever done and can not be undone....
David, As for "almost facts".... I think you are mistaken here.... after all, you believe you are gay today.... that might change tomorow.... But if and/or when you (or any other person teetering on the brink) take that first and final step there will be no turning back....
You may choose not to "live gay" bu8t gay you will forever be....
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,
>David, As for "almost facts".... I think you are mistaken here.... after all, you believe you are gay today.... that might change tomorow.... But if and/or when you (or any other person teetering on the brink) take that first and final step there will be no turning back....
>You may choose not to "live gay" bu8t gay you will forever be....
We-ell, I'll agree with you provided that the first and final step is not just committing to a relationship but also falling in love on both a physical and psychological level. After which, yes, you can be more certain that you are gay, in that you have the experience to back yourself up.
However, if it's anything less than that (experimentation, sex without love, love without sex) then I don't think you've passed the "no going back" gay theshold. After all, a lot of people who henceforward find themselves to be gay (and reject heterosexuality altogether) have committed to heterosexual relationships in the past. I see no reason it can't work both ways.
David
P.S. I'm leaving my own situation, and Timmy's, and Brian's out of this entirely, as I understand that we are slightly more difficult to categorise. I am personally still very much of the opinion that there's no problem with us using the label "gay" where we have been hitherto unable to find another that fits us better. In that sense, "gay" really does just mean "attracted to other males". In my own case, I would be entirely frank with a potential partner that I am not experienced, but really I would expect anyone in that position to be honest anyway. Lack of honesty is really not a good foundation for any sort of relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said,
>but also falling in love on both a physical and psychological level.
by which I mean the relationship is mutual and physical; I'm not including unrequited love and love from afar here.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
That "step", may not be as defining as you state.
Take the plunge with a sweet, giving, understanding, passionate, wonderful lover who puts your needs above his. The new sensations are overpoweringly good (presumably) even if one is "a littel biut gay" or even "just visiting".
Take the same plunge with a total jerk who is out for his own pleasure and it may make oyu celibate for life regardless of your orientation
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 found this on a web site:
"I personally don't believe in bi sexuals, I find it impossible to comprehend; sexual atttraction is what it is, a truly straight man is attracted to women, period; a gay man only wants men, women are there for 'diva' worship;
can a gay man induce himself to have sex with a woman? sure; many bar owners I worked for in the past had wives and children, obviously as a result of sex,only to come out totally in later years, very "Brokeback Mountain";
for many men, in order to keep their relatives , life time friends, and fellow workers happy, they need the wife and kids, vital accessory items for any closted male(or female, for that matter)
so to me, a so called bi sexual male is a Gay Male Who Wants All The Privileges and Considerations Of The Straight Universe While Still Being Able To Get What He REALLY Desires On The Side; I will never believe the psycho babble of waking up today and asking "guy or a gal" today; that's simply a smoke screen that Karl Rove would admire(and probably uses)..."
__._,_.___
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
I think only a truly bisexual person can answer this. I am gay, married and absolutely not bisexual.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Navyone wrote:
> .. I will never believe the psycho babble of waking up today and asking "guy or a gal" today; that's simply a smoke screen that Karl Rove would admire(and probably uses)..."
>
As I understand it (from the couple of self-described bisexuals that I've known in the past) it really doesn't work like that at all. More - "the person I've fallen in love with at the moment happens to be of X gender, but if we split up, the next person I fall for could be of either gender."
Inerestingly, one of my bisexual former friends said that if he was in a relationship with someone of a particular sex, his fantasies tended to be about the other sex.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... or whether you agree with this, Navyone (perhaps you could add a few lines explaining why you posted it?), but I think the original author is completely unjustified in his allegations.
>a so called bi sexual male is a Gay Male Who Wants All The Privileges and Considerations Of The Straight Universe While Still Being Able To Get What He REALLY Desires On The Side; I will never believe the psycho babble of waking up today and asking "guy or a gal" today; that's simply a smoke screen that Karl Rove would admire(and probably uses)..."
It doesn't take into account that there is no known reason that it is not possible for a person to be equally attracted to both men and women. If someone says he or she is, why shouldn't we believe them? As for changing their sexuality each day, I sincerely doubt that anyone does that. It's the individual who is attractive, not the sex as a whole. ("Sorry, ma'am, I'm not attracted to you today. Today's my gay day. On the other hand, if you asked me tomorrow...")
It's really the same sort of logic a straight person might use to convince himself that gay people are deliberately being perverse, even perverted, for the sake of shocking other people and/or God. "Why can't they just accept that they should adopt a purely heterosexual lifestlye, and enjoy it?"
As far as I can see, it is only today's society that expects people to conform to one identity or another. It likely has something to do with the very creditable fight of gay people throughout the last century to gain recognition as something completely different from straight people. That is not to say that many/most people are not exclusively interested in one sex or the other. However, until the 20th century many celebrated people now considered homosexual have had wives and families. And the ancient Greeks had no problem with bisexuality: generally, they were gay in their youth and straight when they came to marry.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is not to say that there are not people who say they are bisexual because it is slightly more socially acceptable than just being "gay" (see NW's posts above), but it's facile to assume that all (or even anything more than a very few) bisexual people fall into that category.
That said, I'm not gay (by Marc's definition: I am certainly not experienced with gay culture), and I'm not straight, and I'm not sure if I might potentially count as bisexual (I appreciate the occasional woman), either. If an experienced bisexual person could comment, that would be great. Bisexual, in this context, presumably does not include those people who are gay but have married, unless they actually do have fairly equal attractions to both sexes.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You are looking at it as hot or cold sex.......
There is for most that moment when a fun fuck comes ones way and it is enjoyed as what it is..... A good fun screw....
That is as valid as any other set of circumstances for setting the bar that last inch higher.......
Face it.... it takes a sense of adventure.... a care free attitude to go out and score.... no strings attached.... Just for the fun of it...
and if you don't grab for the brass ring you will never ever get that free ride......
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
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Defines Bisexual as such.....
BISEXUAL 1. (n., adj.) Real meaning "a being having both sexes' genitals"2. Equally attracted sexually and emotionally, to both men and women. A person of either sex who can perform both homosexually and heterosexually.
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...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
It's made of brass??????????????
Well ring my bell!
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... in its definition.
It is true that as a biologigal term bisexual means 'having both sexes in one individual' - it desn't specifically apply to genitalia - but in that context the word is used to describe lower organisms and is not applied to humans.
The term for a human with genitalia characteristic of both sexes is 'hermaphrodite', though in the USA the term 'intersexual' is apparently preferred.
When applied to humans, 'bisexual' means an individual who is ATTRACTED to members of both sexes'. There is no reference to 'performance'
I've used British dictionaries (Chambers and Oxford) to research this, and I do appreciate that the Dictionary of Gay Terms and Phrases is possibly reflecting specific usage in the gay community - but in 'ordinary' usage the meanings are as above.
While meandering through the dictionaries, I checked on 'homosexual', and there, too, the definition refers to attraction to the same sex rather than to any actual sexual relationship. As 'Gay' is defined as a colloquial term for homosexual, I assume that the same underlying definition must apply. Taking my mental meanderings a step further, I suppose that if there is a significant genetic element in gayness - and the evidence certainly points that way - then science would tend to define anyone with that genetic marker as 'homosexual', whether or not the individual chose to repress his or her 'gayness'.
I do see the significance of the threshhold to which Marc refers, but perhaps the line should be regarded as distiguishing 'functional' gayness from 'intellectual' gayness. But, at the end of the day, it's only a question of semantics; perhaps the important thing is to recognise the psychological significance of that first 'real' encounter.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
I have never considered myself bisexual, I am gay but I have had sex with a number of women and married and had a child by one of them. I have to admit that I had as great an experience sexually with them as any str8 man would have with another man (and we all know plenty of str8 men who have enjoyed another man).
But in the case of my wife it was much more than that. I loved her and still do although we separated over forty years ago. Sex with her was better than with most of the men I have been with except a very few.
I just celebrated the 29th anniversary of meeting the man I love and admire most in the world. But I will never forget the women, though I have forgotten so many men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
Would it be too patrinizing to say, "How sad"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
My question would be, what terns you on, either emotionally or physically?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... are really unimportant.
Back in my actively gay youth, there was always an inner geek trying to make an impression on my public persona, and even then I always wanted to know why I was the way I was. No guilt, just curiosity. In those ancient times, there was still some support for the essentially Freudian concept that sexual attraction could be represented by the 'normal distribution curve'. For those lucky enough not to have studied mathematics or statistics, the normal distribution curve is a bell-shaped graph, with 'normality' at the highest point of the 'bell'. The graph is bell-shaped because most people are normal or near-normal; the further the distance from normality, the fewer people are affected. In any given population, you'd expect a normal distribution curve if you graphed characteristics such as height or intelligence.
I always had a kind of attraction to this theory. The idea was that most people were bisexual, to a greater or lesser degree, and that only a small number at each extremity were truly homosexual or heterosexual. Of course, the picture was heavily skewed because of social pressures to 'conform'.
Those who have read my previous posts will know that I favour the theory that a mix of genetic and other factors determine whether someone is 'gay', but I still have an affection for the old-fashioned theory. I suppose that, reduced to basics, what I am saying is that - in essence - any male who is capable of having successful sexual relations with a female is bisexual. He may well be on the 'gay' side of the graph, so that his partner of ideal choice would be of the same sex, but he is CAPABLE of crossing the median and having sex with a female.
I don't quite understand why people are so bothered about this. As far as I am concerned, I've had lots of gay relationships and I have enjoyed everything I did immensely - but that doesn't prevent me from loving my wife and kids to bits. So, on the Freudian graph, I'm bisexual. So what? I'm me, and I love looking at boys!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jleo71
|
|
Getting started |
Location: USA
Registered: July 2006
Messages: 22
|
|
|
This might help clarify some of the questions concerning this issue.
http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/sexual_orientation.html
Eminent historian of sexuality Vern L. Bullough died of cancer on June 21 in Thousand Oaks, California. Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology at SUNY-Buffalo, he also founded the Center for Sex Research at California State University, Northridge. He was the author, co-author, or editor of more than 50 books, about half of which deal with sex and gender issues. He wrote our entries on Artificial Insemination, Homophobia, Pederasty, and Sexual Orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: "When did you decide to be straight?" 
