|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
As much as I try to think of being gay as being just a single sexuality, the more I meet other gay people the more I find it hard to categorise the seeming 2-way division into a single category. Top vs Bottom. Older-liking vs Younger-liking. Fem vs Straight-acting. As much as I try to see these as options that all gay men have, almost exclusively people that like older guys, prefer being "bottom" and act more femininely than their "top" counterparts. Generally "bottoms" also know they are gay from a younger age and have a different type of angst to what a "top" might have when coming out.
Do you guys think it is possible, maybe even likely that there is a biological division between "tops" and "bottoms". Because even with versatile gays there seems to be a definite preference.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that certain things might tend to cluster together: there are several gay sterotypes (some of which are self-identified / self-created), and many gay people find security in belonging to a recognisable "type".
So, camp / bottom / "early awareness" might cluster together - yet I know an extremely camp lad who is exclusively a top. And I am an exclusive bottom, was early aware of my sexuality, but don't think that I appear effeminate.
So no, I think that gayness is a broad spectrum (from largely heterosexual but will have sex with men, through to guys who feel sick at the thought of sex with a woman), and guys who have a large gay side to them can fit anywhere on other scales (camp to butch, attracted to older/younger/same age, top / versatile / bottom / dislike anal / dislike oral / etc).
I think that there are *lots* of ways of *being* gay - but it's only in the past few years when homosexuality has gained a fair degree of acceptance that we've been able to openly explore these, and we are still lacking a diversity of role-models. And for those of us who came out in the 1970s, (when available role-models were pretty much either camp queens/actors/artists or the rudimentary "gay clone" scene), the struggle to try to forge a consistent social identity as an "out gay man" that was neither of these was tough indeed: no gay MPs, rock stars etc
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I'm going to make an educated guess on the top vs bottom question based on a sample size of one. If we add other sample sizes of one to it we could well get an objective answer 
In my teens I had a penis that was broken. I had also discovered that the anus was deeply erotic, and that the prostate was superb fun. I recognised that my penis would never function as a penetrative item wthout surgery, and transferred my masturbatory fantasies towards my anus.
I reasoned that sex was sex, pleasure was pleasure, and, if I could solve the hygiene issues, being penetrated was going to be excellent fun.
So, for my own somewhat invalid reasons I taught myself to be a bottom.
Today I am impotent without pills. Were I to be able to be in a sexual situation the sole easy function for me would be as a bottom. With pills I can become decently erect, without them it is the luck of the draw, or fails to last
Additionally I was afraid that the boy I adored would absolutely not want to be "an object to be penetrated", and I wanted, if I ever managed to get together with him (fat chance there) to be able to give him things he woudl need, not "do to him" things I wanted to do. Oddly, I had never heard of oral sex!
And yet my dreams when I can recall them have invariably been of being a top. This is an interesting paradox.
I do not see top or bottom as anything except a choice, whereas I see homosexuality as instinctive.
You hit it in your last paragraph. For me, in my sample size of one, it is a preference. But, give me someone I love and who loves me, and in that situation anything mutual goes! Or it would if I chose to be able to participate.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
help me design a poll to find out more.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It might seem that I fall fairly squarely into the "younger-liking, straight-acting" category, but I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm neither a top nor a bottom because I have had no time to develop anything like that -- indeed, I am not altogether certain whether I will become either. And though on the whole I am attracted to younger people on looks alone, in some cases I have found myself attracted to people in their thirties, perhaps even (very occasionally) in their forties, largely on the basis of their intellect and sense of humour -- though admittedly almost always boyish people, and these represent a very small percentage of the total population.
I probably count as a "sexuality at an older age" person -- I have no recollections of having any sexuality at all prior to summer 1995, when I was (only just) 11. It took me a couple more years to identify my feelings as a sexuality rather than merely an attraction. I get the impression that this is quite late.
Beyond my own case I don't think I can really comment, and I ought to offer the disclaimer that I am in no way an ordinary, common-and-garden homosexual. Though maybe no-one is. Indeed, I may even be bisexual -- and I would have absolutely no idea how they fit into the "straight-acting vs. effeminate/top vs. bottom" debate.
If there were a poll, I would be prepared to vote in it. I am not sure how you could test something vague like sexuality to any degree of precision, though.
David
[Updated on: Tue, 21 November 2006 10:38] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The answers to your question so far tend only to cause me to want to ask another question. To what degree does or should our sexuality define who we are in total? Other than a means to advertise your sexuality in the effort to find a partner, I see any kind of categorization, well, kind of limiting.
I don’t really know how to describe my place in all this; I don’t wear my sexuality on my sleeve so to speak. This whole idea of being identifiable as any thing other than a human being really bothers me. The cool thing is that as people do get to know me it’s like a light goes on over their heads, Ooooh yeah he’s gay. The sad thing is that within the gay community its like, what are you, what’s with you are, are you some kind of traitor. One weird occasion was when I went to a HIV support group and the “Facilitator” said are you sure you’re in the right place LOL. And I go well, yeah I think so. And he says well this is mainly a group for gay pos people and I say well I did contract HIV as a bottom in a same sex relationship.
I’ll admit I have had sex with a few women but it was never as complete feeling as my relationships with other males. And far as top or bottom goes I am totally versatile, have been since I was 11. Whom I am attracted to is totally dependant on personality; I find both young and people of my own age attractive. My lover from who I contracted HIV was a year older than I.
I do think the effects of the period of time you happened to grow up in and the social attitudes of that time have a lot of bearing on this discussion.
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I know that a lot about sexuality is choice and preference, but then again liking guys at all is about choice and preference to some degree.
I guess, what I'm wondering if the gay brain is different to the straight brain, as some studies have suggested, then is the "top" brain, different the "bottom" brain? I'm not talking only about sexual positions, I think that there is more flexibility in sex than in the actual bounds of the relationship. But most of the "top" gay guys I've met, whether or not they top during sex seem to have more in common, as do "bottom" guys.
Ryan and I are pretty good examples of the stereotypes, but not even because we want to be. I'm far from macho, but in how I think, I probably have more in common with my straight male (albeit geeky) friends. Ryan, although still a guy, in a lot of ways approaches a lot of things with a more female mindset. If being gay is biological is Ryan biologically more gay than me, with a more female brain? Are there 2 different types of biological gay? Because if sexual orientation is merely preference, then maybe it isn't biological at all, but rather just a choice.
I'm happy with either outcome, personally, but without the "this is how I was born" argument, it does make us come under greater attack from conservatives.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... is that, if gay people can really be divided into two groups (and I don't think I would like to agree, because such a concept has been used in the past to subdivide gay men into, on one hand, dirty old men in grubby raincoats preying on impressionable youths, and the the other as camp, effeminate queens: both highly unpleasant stereotypes in my eyes), then you are more likely to find the "older for younger" group here, because of the subject matter of the site. Therefore, the results of any hypothetical poll will necessarily be somewhat biased.
From anecdotal evidence I think we have at least as many, if not more "bottoms" than "tops", which is interesting assuming that my postulation in the first paragraph is correct. Also interesting is that two of the people who have stated themselves to be "bottoms" on the board I know in real life, and I can say that neither is excessively or even noticeably camp.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I would like a poll that didn't just give 2 questsions and the results of each question but rather one that linked the possible options. Under your current poll system there would need to be a rather high number of options to match each possibility, or the seperate possibilities wouldn't be linked. I would like to see the results of a poll that asked some questions about perceived sexuality, practiced sexuality, age of partners, age of attraction, gender perception, gender action, sexual positions, campness and a few other things. The number of results would be quite varied, and possibly hard to display, you'd need to list the numbers for "straight acting, gay, but married to a woman, attracted to older guys, preferred bottom male" and every other possible combination of the 6-9 or however many factors ended up being relevant. I'd just be interested if there was a trend that the vast majority of, for example, straight acting guys preferred to be top, or bottoms preferred older guys, etc.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
As I said in my later post I see sexual positions as one of the most flexible factors. The type of sex you enjoy, I think, is one of the least likely things to be biological. But as a "top" I define myself as someone that would hate to be in a relationship with someone older, partially because I'm unwilling to surrender my independence to my parner. I want to be the protector, the "smart one" and to have a loving, adoring, emotional partner. Typically I want in a boyfriend might be somewhat similar to what a straight male might seek in a wife. What Ryan wants in a boyfriend is more similar to what a woman might seek in a man. Similarly he wants snuggles more, I often want sex more, he has a lot of female "fag hags" and although I'd be hesistant to say that he is camp, he is more feminine than me. It definitely doesn't seem limited to Ryan and my relationship, though. I have plenty of other gay friends that, intentionally or not, seem to fall into "roles" in a relationship, or more to the point are already of particular roles before their relationship. As stereotypical as this may be, in some cases stereotypes hold and even have scientific basis. Most asians do, in reality, have more angular eyes and facial features! It's a stereotype and a truth...
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm. I guess you have more experience of gay people than I do. On the whole those gay people that I have met have all seemed very ordinary and straight-acting. I have not, in fact, met anyone I would label as camp, and certainly not gay on the basis of his mannerisms (with the possible exception of one person at school). Perhaps I haven't been looking out for it hard enough.
Do you find you are more attracted to slightly effeminate boys/teenagers/men than entirely straight-acting ones?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Hmmm... for me I'd say I prefer effeminate to macho, but boyish to effeminate. I like playful, cute and energetic rather than girly. I've met some very camp gay guys, especially in Japan. Most Japanese guys at Western-style clubs are there to meet foreigners (Japanese themselves don't usually go to clubs to meet), so they are obviously after more masculine guys. Most of them, that I actually spoke to preferred to bottom, wanted an older guy, etc, etc.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I kind of meant "spoon feed me".
How about designing the questions?
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 description pretty much suits me as well.
In my case, I don't think I'm exclusively attracted to younger people, but simply that on the whole, younger people are more likely to have those traits. Intellectually I am more attracted to people of my age and perhaps a bit older, especially if they are intelligent and creative. My ideal partner would be someone who is bright and has a good sense of humour, about my age but perhaps looks a little younger.
I haven't ever thought about a prospective partner's status as a bottom or top, campness or straight-actingness, possibly because I have never thought of myself taking a particular role. I do find very slight effeminacy attractive, but it doesn't matter much to me either way.
"Butch" or "macho" all too often means unintelligent, boring and preoccupied with sex, football and beer -- I find all of those things a huge turn-off. It can also mean "old and hairy" (especially facially), and the less said about that the better. (No offence intended to anyone here who has facial hair.)
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> But as a "top" I define myself as someone that would hate to be in a relationship with someone older, partially because I'm unwilling to surrender my independence to my parner. I want to be the protector, the "smart one" and to have a loving, adoring, emotional partner.
I don't think that works at all! I don't see any necessary connection between social role and sexual one.
I know that when I've been in a fully sexual relationship with someone considerably younger than me, I have been the "protector" in the relationship, and the out-of-bed side of things has tended to be for me to act as somewhat of a mentor. It is for precisely this reason that it works well that I'm a "bottom" - sex becomes a time when my partner is more likely to be taking the lead. I'm not into power imbalances in relationships - in some way, this habit helps to guarantee that.
I'm afraid that I rather see equating a socially "passive" homosexual with a "passive" partner in anal sex as a pernicious piece of linguistic stereotyping - while obviously it may be the case for some people, I think that it is co-incidence rather than cause. It seems to me to be the same kind of thing as when straight people ask "so which one of you is the man?" - to which the answer, obviously, is "both" (regardless of who does what to whom, how often, and how).
Please don't take this too personally - it just reflects my experience of myself and the out gay guys I know, and my worries that the theory presents a possibility for some sorts of gay men to be made to feel that they are less than fully "manly".
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej wrote:
> (No offence intended to anyone here who has facial hair.)
>
I wouldn't dream of taking any offence - I've had a moustache since I was 18, and have heard much worse than that!
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I agree with the issues of "less manly". I found it very hard to say for the first time that I am a bottom by preference because of that very thing.
It is not a feminine role, nor a subjugated or dominated role. It is just sex and is the way I wish to give my body to my partner.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I don't agree with your redefining "top" to mean anything other than its descriptive sexual role
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
Saben wrote:
> I know that a lot about sexuality is choice and preference, but then again liking guys at all is about choice and preference to some degree.
Excuse me? I do not recall having a choice. One day I thought I was heterosexual. The next day I was lusting after a boy. I had no choice except to try very hard not to lust after him.
I do not "prefer" a boy as an informed choice. My instinct prefers one on my behalf.
[Updated on: Tue, 21 November 2006 22:12]
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One can choose one's partner. One cannot prevent oneself from feeling attracted to someone, but one can certainly choose not to act on it.
I'm not sure if that's what Saben meant or not.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I expect he'll tell us
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
when you find the person you love you will adore their beard, moustache, sideburns or anything about them, even hairy legs!
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very true!
When I first got together with my ex, he had short streaked hair - not something I go for. Then he grew it long - halfway down his back: total WOW !! for me (I'm just an ageing hippy at heart). Then he had it all cut off in a very conservative "business" cut, because long hair causes serious hassles in airports in some places (China, the USA, etc) ... but was still the cutest and most adorable person and the hair wasn't an issue for me.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timmy said,
>when you find the person you love you will adore their beard, moustache, sideburns or anything about them, even hairy legs!
I can't quite get my head round the logic there -- I think it's something along the lines of a truism. If you are attracted to -- indeed, love -- the whole then there is a good chance you will also be attracted to -- love -- the parts. But, in my case, it doesn't take into account the fact that I am unlikely to fall in love with someone with a beard or moustache, because I find them very hard to look past. As hard as, say, age.
In your case, it would be like me saying to you, "When you find the 60 year-old man you will love you will love him despite his age." You have already said that it is very unlikely that you will ever find yourself sexually attracted to anyone over the age of 30, therefore my comment would not be lot of use to you -- even if you were single and looking for a relationship.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... Saben has raised a very interesting question and has identified the reason why we can do no more than talk about ourselves or speculate wildly.
If we identify a dozen relevant characteristics to be established on a yes/no basis, there are over 4000 possible permutations for the twelve answers. If our interest is in identifying group associations, then with a simple yes/no program, it would be necessary to offer every possible alternative - 4000+ in all. Even if we limit ourselves to 8 characteristics, we would require 250+ questions.
If it were possible to ask the questions in a 'form', then of course there need only be twelve questions, and a suitable analytic programme could summarise the results without much difficulty - much like the overlapping circles in good old-fashioned set theory. Statistically, a fairly modest sample size would generate valid results. The trouble is, no one (as far as I know) has done it yet!
In a later post, Saben wonders whether sexual orientation may be a choice. I think that there is pretty compelling evidence - not least the 'twin' studies I mentioned a couple of days ago in another thread - to show that this is not so. For some (but by no means all) there is of course a choice between accepting and repressing homosexuality, but choosing whether to act gay is an entirely different option from choosing whether to BE gay.
On the original question, as suggested above, the absence of research means that I can only speculate - but my speculation is that NW is probably fairly near the mark. Preferences are - in general - the product of experience. Apart from special cases, as Timmy has described himself above, aversion to 'topping' - or, for that matter, 'bottoming' - may stem from fear of pain, from embarrassment or from the fundamental belief that the act is 'dirty'. But even though the act itself is not experienced, the feelings of aversion will themselves be derived from earlier experience. It seems reasonable to me to reduce the problem to simplistic terms: we are all susceptible to both genetic and environmental influences; together, they make us what we are. In turn, our attitudes and reactions reflect 'what we are' - so it's not merely reasonable but logical to suppose that a particular kind of individual may be predisposed to a group of 'gay characteristics'. Such a group might comprise 'bottoming', preference for older partners and effeminate behaviour - but this is simply a different character-driven manifestation of sexual preference, not a different KIND of sexual preference. And even if there is a significant group correlation, I'd bet that exceptions are at least equally numerous.
Does this make sense? If so, please explain it to me!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I suppose that lots of people go through life without experiencing it, but many do - and when it happens logic takes a back seat.
There is actually a bona fide Darwinian theory that 'love' is a consequence of natural selection, and is not restricted to humans. The theory postulates that love involves hormonal changes creating a form of euphoria, and that this euphoria continues until the child born of the union is successfully weaned. A biological explanation of the 'seven year itch', perhaps?
It may be difficult to understand until or unless it happens to you, but it really is in some ways similar to the effects of a mind-altering drug. And it certainly does go beyond visual attraction - as the wedding photographs in any local paper will demonstrate conclusively!
(I should add that I do have a beard - tried experimentally some 30 years ago because my wife liked the idea, and retained ever since because I discovered that Margaret Thatcher DIDN'T like beards!)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aussie
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 475
|
|
|
>I should add that I do have a beard - tried experimentally some 30 years ago because my wife liked the idea, and retained ever since because I discovered that Margaret Thatcher DIDN'T like beards!)
Were you sleeping with Margaret Thatcher at the time and decided you needed a break?
Aussie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I guess the reason why I suggested it might be choice-based is more that I think there is an innate bisexual potential in most humans. If everyone is bisexual to some degree, then surely there is some kind of element of choice involved with who you partner with? If humans are born biologically gay or straight, then what elements of being gay are actually biological? A lot of studies have shown that gay people are able to be identified from their voices, and other studies have shown female brain patterns in male animals.
In the twin studies how did they define gay?
I personally don't see anything wrong with being gay, even if it is a choice. But the gay community has to take certain stances in western countries to protect being gay. The greeks didn't seem to need to think in terms of gay and straight as much as modern people do.
I don't know exactly what I'm getting at, which is why I'm posting a lot. I just think that being gay, if it is biological is more about gender function of the brain than just preference in some gays. Sexual preference seems like such an odd thing to be encoded biologically. Freudian logic says that people will be attracted to people that look like their mother/ father. But has any other kind of sexual preference (hair colour, race, whatever!) been shown to be genetic?
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13800
|
|
|
I agree with you. And what we both have said is true. It's just that love blinds you to things you would normally find not to your taste. I speak from experience.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David, an important principle is that logic does not apply to falling in love. It goes out of the window. I never was into sci-fi, but wasn't Dr Spock who epitomised logic and was therefore incapable of falling in love?
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From Both Sides Now. Way cool cossie. It is mainly the illusions we remember I think.
Peace
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wheee - what a lot of questions. 'scuse me if some of my suggested answers are a bit short - I'm happy to amplify any of them if anyone wants me to, but scared of boring people!
Saben wrote:
> I guess the reason why I suggested it might be choice-based is more that I think there is an innate bisexual potential in most humans. If everyone is bisexual to some degree, then surely there is some kind of element of choice involved with who you partner with?
There's a difference between capability and desire. Think of getting a blow-job in the pitch dark: the sensation could be identical whether a girl of a guy is giving it, "most" guys could come. But for me as a gay guy I would always prefer the person giving the BJ to be a guy: I cannot choose which I prefer (I can, however, choose whether or not I go into a dark room with a guy, a girl, or no-one).
> If humans are born biologically gay or straight, then what elements of being gay are actually biological? A lot of studies have shown that gay people are able to be identified from their voices,
The way we express ourselves is very socially-conditioned. We do a lot of what we do, in order to "fit in", or because everyone we know does it like that and we've never really questioned it. In addition, gay people are a minority in society, and it makes sense to have some way of "advertising" one is gay to casual passers-by who might be potential mates - voice would be good for this. But I think this is purely a phenomenom of Western-style societies ... I don't think it's an attribute to be found, for example, in small-scale societies where everyone has known each other since birth. It's "learned", not genetic.
> and other studies have shown female brain patterns in male animals.
Could we say that people (of either gender) who are sexually attracted to males share some similar brain patterns? To label these "female" is a sexist and potentially homophobic route to go down.
>
> (snip)
>
> I just think that being gay, if it is biological is more about gender function of the brain than just preference in some gays.
Gender differences are largely socially constructed. Socialisation and social experience may produce changes to brain pathways, in much the same way as working out at the gymn will produce physical ones. But very little of what we in the West think of as "gender" differences are intrinsically biological (in the sense of being genetically determined) - they are nearly all social (see almost any sex/gender anthropological study).
> Sexual preference seems like such an odd thing to be encoded biologically. Freudian logic says that people will be attracted to people that look like their mother/ father. But has any other kind of sexual preference (hair colour, race, whatever!) been shown to be genetic?
"Preference" would indeed be odd to encode biologically. But as I don't think homosexuality is a "preference" like hair colour, but is an "orientation" (ie a permanent desire which may or may not be acted on), I don't see a problem.
There are no grounds for regarding a homosexual orientation as unlikely from an evolutionary perspective - historically most gay men (ie homosexual desire) have had enough heterosexual contact to father children. In addition, it is very clear that behaviour which is contrary to *individual* survival may be favoured by evolution if it contributes to the survival of either shared genes, or society at large - for example, acts of altruism like jumping into a lake to save a drowning child.
None of my views should be taken as gospel, of course, but it is an area that I've read a fair bit about, and studied many years ago at Uni.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Love -- ah! I would like to fall in love, but I have not had an opportunity so far. Therefore I can only theorise about it. I hope that I am not too logical to be able to feel it; one does not need to be able to explain a phenomenon to be able to experience it.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spock , Spock (Mr rather than Dr) in fact married. So one might assume that he was capable of love, even if (I don't know because I'm not a Star Trek fan) he was not able to explain it.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Cossie,
>(I should add that I do have a beard - tried experimentally some 30 years ago because my wife liked the idea, and retained ever since because I discovered that Margaret Thatcher DIDN'T like beards!)
I have absolutely no objection to people having beards, Cossie, especially if their partners like them: it is only that I, personally, prefer men without. It may have something to do with my upbringing: no-one in my family has a beard, and my father has never had one and has no intention ever of growing one.
To cap it all, my own stubble is somewhat ginger. I have a horror of letting it grow any further lest I be mistaken for a Scot!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I so strongly disapproved of her politics that I'd automatically take the opposite view to pretty well anything she said or did.
She suceeded in curbing the excessive political power of Trade Unions but, that apart, she caused enormous damage to the social fabric of my country. I cannot think of anyone I have ever detested more wholeheartedly.
So, as soon as it was reported that she didn't trust men with beards, I decided that my beard was here to stay!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... though first I must say that I agree with everything NW says.
The Freudian assumption that we seek partners similar to our parents is likely to be wholly or almost wholly a reflection of learned behaviour. Sticking to the purely biological principle of natural selection, the logical presumption would be that we should act to maintain the strength of the gene pool and thus seek partners with different characteristics from our own. It may not be without significance that as parental influence has declined, partnerships bridging social and ethnic groupings have increased.
The only other point I wish to add is that almost all research into the causes of homosexuality is suspect. This simply reflects the fact that much of that research is funded by institutions with a biased agenda; the principle applies throughout the western world, but is especially true in America, where most of the research has been carried out. There simply isn't enough wholly independent research, and there is far too much speculation! For example, whilst it is true that research has identified similarities between certain brain characteristics of gay men and those of females, there has not - so far as I know - been any research to demonstrate that these differences are inherited rather than the result of brain activity after birth. As things stand, there's no evidence to determine whether the relevant brain characteristics are the consequence of a gay lifestyle, or whether a person is gay because he has those characteristics.
In reply to Saben's direct question, there have been several twin studies over the years, and the definition of homosexual may not have been constantly applied. However, as far as I can recollect, it was normally based upon gender preference rather that actual lifestyle.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the confusion may be that we think we know what we mean when we say "gay", when actually we don't.
Most people seem to have a mental image of a scale with 100% str8 at one end, and 100% gay at the other (similar to the kinsey scale, which used 0=str8, 6=gay).
But this seems to be inadequate. Klein came up with a rather more useful scale, which considers:
* Sexual attraction: Who turns you on? Who do you find attractive as a real or potential partner?
* Sexual behavior: Who are your sexual contacts or partners?
* Sexual fantasies: Whom do you enjoy fantasizing about in erotic daydreams?
* Emotional preferences: With whom do you prefer to establish strong emotional bonds?
* Social preference: Which sex do you prefer to spend your leisure time with, and with which sex do you feel most comfortable?
* Self-identification: How do you think of yourself?
* Lifestyle preference: What is the sexual identity of the people with whom you socialize?
There's a good intro to this subject on http://www.endhomophobia.org/BeyondGay.htm
and there's an on-line version of the Klein scale to fill in at http://www.youthnetsouthampton.org.uk/breakout/kleingrid.php if anyone is interested (although the point of the scale is not really to give an "overall" figure in the way this does, but rather to help understand the kinds of areas that make up what we think of as "sexual orientation")
None of which addresses the issues of preferences for younger and older, or top and bottom. But it does show the enormous diversity possible among those who are gay - and really clearly puts the "lifestyle" element that homophobes rant on about in a sensible perspective!
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But then again, Freud was a certified nutcase himself on so many things.
Personally, I don't find myself being wholly "top" or wholly "bottom." In my relationship with my boifriend, we tend to take differing roles at different times. Neither of us acts camp or especially effeminate. I'm quite proud to be male and my Benji is as well. On the whole, I'd have to say that, sexually speaking, I've performed as "top" more often than not with Ben, but that's been the mood of the moment, and to be honest, if he wanted to be "top" at any time, I have no objection. Actually, it's somewhat fun to mix up things from time to time.
Also speaking from my own experience, I have no problem with cuddling, holding hands or any other "romantic" or "effeminate" behaviour when I'm with Ben. It's not a matter of defining a pre-determined role, I find. It's more going with the feeling of the moment and what seems not only right for us, but what works for us.
Now, this next part is just my analytical mind kicking into gear here a bit, but my guess, and mind you, it's just a guess, is that there is a subtle change in your relationship, or at least your perception of your relationship that has you questioning things. It's Perfectly Normal to do so. Life is a constant adjustment period, and anyone that tells you anything different is either running for political office or trying to sell you something, or both.
I urge you to gently examine your own personal feelings about things and see if this is just a scientific curiousity that has you somewhat pensive, or is there something about your current situation that you need to examine more closely. My gut, and my knowledge of you, is telling me it's a combination of the two. I have the feeling that some very unexpected and wonderful surprises may await you in such examination, and a deeper understanding of not only your own needs, but those of your partner.
Stay true to who you are, Saben-kun, and you will find what you seek. I have a good feeling about this. Besides, inside, I think you already know the answer to the questions that keep coming up in your mind.
HUGS
Cya on the Other Side, Kiddo,
D'Artagnon, aka the Big Bad Wolf aka Bonehead aka
Robby
It's not the wolf you see you should fear, but all the ones he howls with. Don't be afraid of the song, but don't piss off the choir.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, of course Dr Spock was the man who pontificated on child-rearing in his books, ruined two generations and then turned round and admitted that he'd got it wrong.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not keen on women with beards, either.
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
