|
|
|
|
I read the entry for the 5 December 2005 written by a 15 year old boy, a very intelligent 15 year old. It is written with personal insight and experience and made a deep impression on me. It deserves a wider readership.
http://www.mouseboys.net/7.html
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The problem is coming to terms with what is legaly adult and what is not.
The law says one thing... sets the limits... is responsible for policing the low life that deem to not follow the law...
The reality is that some people do....
Some people don't...
whatever...
at least I have managed to numb myself from either...
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: 13796
|
|
|
Cheese it! Another lazy day in the Mouse Hole. Been working on MY Used Movie page that I am allowed to use and I am really enjoying it. If you do not see what you are looking for there, let me try and find it for you. I have a few more I will put up this week on my friend's site that I help with. * I still do not sleep at night. I have had night terrors for years. They do not go away. I have done the therapy, medications and nothing works. Most of my trauma usually occurred at night. So I sit up and work on ideas for my site, do some of my back log of emails and finally grab some sleep around 5 am. I can get away with this now because of my Home School schedule. I used to fall asleep in class, especially Civics. Being sexually molested was not the worst, nor the beatings. Plain just being afraid all the time is what haunts me. He (my father) was mean and scared me badly. I know I will never see my father again. I hope he got some help to get over his terrible anger. He did not want to be that way I could tell. * With those that might be reading this that have been with a kid, you may not think you are doing damage and that even maybe he or she liked it. It is after the guilt really sets in and the mental abuse begins to manifest itself into a real nightmare for the kid. Always look at others as not an object to satisfy your needs, but as a person with thoughts and feelings. You will be less likely to harm this person. If you have a problem in this area, stay completely away from kids, it just is not worth ruining their life or yours. I always see on the news about a daycare worker, bus driver, a youth minister, teacher that was re-arrested for rape. Do they always go into a youth field of work for this in mind? I don't think they believe that. I think they just want to help. That is the lie they tell themselves. Then at a weak moment it happens. Then several lives are trashed for ever. * How does one become a molester? From all my research it does not just happen one day when they hit 35. It has been there all their lives and they just have not acted out yet. The common denominator seems to be; Low self-esteem, bad core beliefs, and criminal thinking. Patrick Carnes, PHD says the molesting is almost never truly about sex... It is about "Power and control..." The molester feels empty, no self-worth and may have sexualized events that happened to him or her when a child and reenact them over someone not on the same power base (maturity and physical strength). A 'Power Rapist' usually attacks adult women and enjoys the rush of fear and control he has over his victim. Most that rape children are not power rapists or strangers. Mostly they are a trusted friend or relative and no violence is involved. They do it stealthily while the child sleeps or with cheap feels while wrestling. They do it overtly too. The child rapist may say it is for medical reasons, feigning concern over a lump or lack of growth. Some just say they wanted to teach him/her about sex in a safe way - we all know that is rubbish. I have heard the excuse; 'It was his idea, he wanted it, or I tried to talk him out of it.' Now sitting back in a rational state, does that sound logical? No! What child would want a 40 year old man slobbering all over them? Yet this is what the rapist tells himself to convince himself to do the act. It is a sickness that can be cured. There are books on this; please see Mouse's Soap Box page for the book section on Sexual Addiction. Set up your boundaries now. Do not cross them ever. If you become weak, call a support person to help you. For those many without this problem, please help those that do and do not fall for the lies nor enable them. Prison is not the answer - that is just human storage for someone's profit. Stop, help and heal yourself, a friend. Get involved like I am. * I believe. Hugs.
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: 13796
|
|
|
It seems to me that this young man is 100% right. It always has seemed that way.
Actually I think this is one of the things that has caused me so much personal angst as I came to terms with both who I am and with growing up.
A brief summary says:- I became "fixed" sexually at about 15 years old because I allowed a fantasy to develop about by 13,14,16,17,18 year old friend John
- That fantasy extended to loads of other boys
- When I was that same age that was absolutely fine, probably moral, but most assuredly the right age group
- As I aged my fantasy stayed the same age he always was
- I never acknowledged the impossibility of the fantasy properly when young enough to do so more easily
- After about 25 I knew, intellectually, my fatasy was hopeless, but I was still youthful enough looking to fool myself emotionally that I would appeal to a person of 15 - the age of my fantasy
- When I finally acknowledged I was living in cloud cukoo land over this I was in my mid forties, plump, and, except to those who actually love me, quite unappealing
I do not think it is ever likely that a boy, nor a girl, would ever find the idea of being seduced by a substantially older person appealing.
Same age? Yes. Similar age but a year or so older? Depends on the relative physical attributes. But most people (And you my be the exception) do not crave even a guy a couple of years older, sexually, when teenaged. In fact most peoplke cannot relate socially to that age difference, let alone sexually.
I have looked back on my teenage years and asked the question "which older boy would I have liked to be seduced by?"
Many were handsome, some were gorgeous. But none of the ones wioth greater physical development than I were appealing. There were two older boys only. One was John, older by 9 months, and one was Philip, older by 18 months. The important point is that neither of these boys was physically older than I was, both were my physical age or younger.
Truly "older" boys were somehow menacing because they felt more mature.
I regret one thing only: that I was unable for many and valid self preservation reasons to declare myself and my adoration and to achieve even the closure of a broken nose at the time. That would probably have saved me from a lifetime of anguish that I am still resolving.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An interesting exposé, Timmy, but intellectually you do not appear to recognise the 'crush' or 'pash' of the younger for the older, and it is distinctly driven by the younger. This is probably because you did not experience it. Also because it is irrational it defies analysis or explanation.
The crush is something I have tried to deal with in 'Nathan B…'.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I agree that there are two sides to this. I can only express the feelings I had myself
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, but I feel, personally, that older boys are much easier to relate to, as It irritates me when people my own age or younger are not of the same physical, mental and (especially) imotional development that I feel myself to be.
The flipside of the coin is that I cannot even be atracted by anyone more than six years my seior, yet i know this isn't necisarily ("substantially") older, yet the reason this doesn't work is not that I dont socially relate to this person, infact, for me this is impportant, i dont want someone to socially relate, and I want to live "separate" social lives. Some people might find this weird, i don't.
The only reason I (at 15 going on 16) cannot relate to someone that much older is often because I feel so young, even if this is what I am, and even if the older person doesn't so or do anything to make myself feel that. I want to feel at least what my emotional and mental development tells me (thats about 19), even though my physical development lacks (only in hight and small things).
hmmmm...what did I want to add...now i forgot...anyway...
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was lucky when I was a teenager. I was always surrounded by people who were at least as, and in many cases, more intelligent than me. On an intellectual level, age didn't matter much as most people, younger or older, were perfectly capable of showing insight far beyond their years. (Whether they chose to do so is another matter!)
It depresses me that now I have a little experience of the "real world", I have discovered that most people are pretty stupid.
I don't think emotional maturity is necessarily related to intellectual maturity, though. Following on from what Timmy said, I guess that part of my problem is that I'm not really willing to move on and accept that I'm not a child any more. As a teenager I was secure and part of a community and had fewer things to worry about. (At least, until everything went wrong at 16.) Being an adult is about responsibility and doing things that you dislike doing, and worrying most of the time. I don't think I would have been able to take that on a few years ago.
I can't really comment on sexual attraction. I don't think I believe that I would appeal to anyone, so it's a bit academic whether that person is 15, 21 or 51. I have not yet had a relationship with anyone, of any age, and I'd never consider starting one just for the purposes of sex. In today's world, it seems that makes me an anomaly.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Out of interest, and this may be stirring up a hornets' nest:
Does your average common-and-garden gay man find teenagers attractive (13/14/15/16/17 year-olds)?
I'm aware that handsomeness can transcend age, and that there are handsome men of any age, but *beauty* is something that seems to be directly inversely related to age; it falls away rapidly, in some people in their mid teens, in others not until their late twenties.
Surely this is something that everyone must be able to appreciate?
I'm leaving out here all aspects of morals, ethics, intellectual equality and mutual attraction. I'm not talking about sex.
In past cultures, homosexuality was often (maybe even usually) associated with the beauty of youth. In these days of homosexual campaigners and consenting adult relationships, we are constantly reminded that people should be free to be attracted to whomever they like. But whenever anyone asks someone whether he is attracted to people under the age of consent, he will invariably say no.
Is that because of today's climate of hysteria (any admission is likely to be misunderstood), or is it genuinely that other people only see the handsomeness that comes with age and not the beauty of youth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Now think about it.....
Going back several thousand years to the invention of the park bench we find that appreciating the beauty of youth has been a spectator sport of notable merit.
If anyone has ever walked down a beach or sat in a mall watching the world go by they have played the eyecandy game. Anyone that expouses that they don't play is definately in denial.
Now you mention "attraction"..... I have to point out that watchers of beauty need not necessarily be attracted to the bounty prancing before them to appreciate the asthetic of the more subtle points of the sport.
Kevin and I often take note of the more beautious of the fare that saunter by our little store. It is considered one of the perks to the drudgery of commercialism in this hectic day and age.
Fortunatly for us there seems to be a bounty of gay boys from the local Oberlan College also from the ammusement park here in town which activly hires gay youth to fill summer positions (no pun intended).
Move in day at the park dorms is considered great sport for boy watchers.
As far as morals, ethics and the rest.... It is just a game as long as one remembers the rules. It is safe, good, fair play to look.... but never touch.
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: 13796
|
|
|
It comes to natural selection. Were we heterosexual we would go for nubile girls and breed. Because we are gay we can appreciate the beauty of the girls but seek to "breed" with boys.
Nature was ever thus
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
There is a huge difference between boy watching and seeking.
It is that difference that causes park benches to be removed from the parks.
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: 13796
|
|
|
Not simply boys. Girls too. But the point is we either look AT or look FOR youth as a chosen mate if heterosexual. We are designed that way.
It is the mark of civilisation that lets us choose only to look
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
|
|
|
... and as Timmy observed, it is a mark of civilisation - or at least the moral framework created by OUR civilisation - that we can enjoy looking without touching. In my case, almost the whole of my gay adventurings took place between the ages of 12 and 25, and most (but by no means all) of those were with partners slightly younger than myself.
Like Timmy, and many others of my generation, there was a bisexual element in my character (if you looked deeply enough!) and social pressures in the work environment pushed me in that direction. Ultimately, I married and had a family of whom I am immensely proud (lower IQ than Dad, but much better academic results - see Moogle's 'Gay intelligence thread!) and, being monogamous, it never occurred to me to indulge in any form of extra-marital sex.
However, I could never forget that I was essentially gay and, like Timmy, I eventually HAD to tell my wife. I wasn't quite as lucky as Timmy; my admission was accepted and didn't threaten my marriage, but I wasn't allowed to tell my children, a restriction which still rankles. However, the point is that, again like Timmy, my 'gayness' is certainly nostalgia-driven, in that my sphere of attraction is limited to the age in which I was (mentally or physically) active in the gay community, but I would never now contemplate converting my thoughts into action.
One interesting aside, which was the subject of my first exchange of e-mails with Timmy more than four years ago, was my concern - in fact, almost self-loathing - at the discovery that my personal view of the epitome of sexual attraction, which throughout my teens had remained at around age 13, had begun to move towards younger boys. Timmy's advice was extremely helpful, and though it didn't change the focus of my attraction it did help me to irrevocably separate attraction from desire - which was essentially Marc's point.
However, all these ramblings bring me to another question which has always intrigued me. There has been much argument about the nature/nurture origin of gayness. Personally, I lean towards nurture, though possibly determined at a very early age, and not capable of imposed re-alignment - but that's not the issue. My question is - if gayness IS genetic, to what extent might the same be true of attraction to minors (Boy-love, if you prefer that term, or paedophilia in general) and of what (to me) are even more repugnant 'perversions' such as raunch or bestiality?
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 wrote:
>
> However, all these ramblings bring me to another question which has always intrigued me. There has been much argument about the nature/nurture origin of gayness. Personally, I lean towards nurture, though possibly determined at a very early age, and not capable of imposed re-alignment - but that's not the issue. My question is - if gayness IS genetic, to what extent might the same be true of attraction to minors (Boy-love, if you prefer that term, or paedophilia in general) and of what (to me) are even more repugnant 'perversions' such as raunch or bestiality?
Reguarding genetics... The indications are that a biological predisposition to orientation exists.
As for attraction to boys from an adult position... this is a learned response.
As for paedopkilia... This is a problen stemming from a psychological urge and need to show a position of ultimate authority over a less powerful victom. Gay's rarely are involved in acts of paedophilia, but they do occur.
As for raunch and beastiality... The same rules apply there as does your choice for steak over chicken. It is a learned preferance to an alternate set of stimuli.
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 think that sexual attraction generally stems from both physical beauty and identification as a peer. The second one ensures that people will tend to have relationships with people of roughly their own age. By constantly reinforcing the attraction as people get older,
I would guess that if you leave the gay lifestyle behind, and stop identifying with it, then you will tend to see your attractions as being based largely around physical beauty only. And children are, in a way, the epitome of attractiveness: they are designed by nature to appeal to both sexes (in a platonic sense), to ensure that they are nurtured to reach adulthood. While it's not a sexual attraction for most people, I imagine that the reason that society is so schizophrenic about the subject is that people can recognise something of it in themselves.
On genetics: the only way that I can see that a genetic predisposition to being gay would be useful to the human race would be if the same genes that are responsible for homosexuality are also related to a stronger sense of nurture. So, if you had one of these genes you would not necessarily be gay, but you would be more likely to take care of your spouse and your offspring and increase the chances of them reaching adulthood. Or if you did end up gay, at least you would be more inclined to serve a role in helping the rest of your family to reach maturity.
(This would also explain an attraction to the young, without requiring the equivalent of the heterosexual "finding a sexually potent mate" which, though logical, does not really serve a purpose as far as evolution is concerned.)
I think there is no doubt, though, that once you do "choose" a sexuality (and I don't mean consciously choose -- I mean find yourself swinging one way or the other) concepts such as fetishism, or conditioning, come into play. You associate pleasure with certain activities and certain people, and this reinforces the attraction to them. As you get older, your attraction gets older with the objects of your attraction. Coupled with the sense of identification I mentioned in the first paragraph, this explains why people will usually pursue people of their own age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that sexual attraction generally stems from both physical beauty and identification as a peer. The second one ensures that people will tend to have relationships with people of roughly their own age. I would guess that if you leave the gay lifestyle behind, and stop identifying with it, then you will tend to see your attractions as being based largely around physical beauty only. And children are, in a way, the epitome of attractiveness: they are designed by nature to appeal to both sexes (in a platonic sense), to ensure that they are nurtured to reach adulthood. While it's not a sexual attraction for most people, I imagine that the reason that society is so schizophrenic about the subject is that people can recognise something of it in themselves.
On genetics: the only way that I can see that a genetic predisposition to being gay would be useful to the human race would be if the same genes that are responsible for homosexuality are also related to a stronger sense of nurture. So, if you had one of these genes you would not necessarily be gay, but you would be more likely to take care of your spouse and your offspring and increase the chances of them reaching adulthood. Or if you did end up gay, at least you would be more inclined to serve a role in helping the rest of your family to reach maturity.
(This would also explain an attraction to the young, without requiring the equivalent of the heterosexual "finding a sexually potent mate" which, though logical, does not really serve a purpose as far as evolution is concerned.)
I think there is no doubt, though, that once you do "choose" a sexuality (and I don't mean consciously choose -- I mean find yourself swinging one way or the other) concepts such as fetishism, or conditioning, come into play. You associate pleasure with certain activities and certain people, and this reinforces the attraction to them. As you get older, your attraction gets older with the objects of your attraction. Coupled with the sense of identification I mentioned in the first paragraph, this explains why people will usually pursue people of their own age.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deej, what an interesting post!
I hadn't considered the effects of being involved in / not being involved in the gay lifetstyle/scene/whatever before, but - at least for me - that rings very true. Up til about 2 years ago, I had had no contact with other gay men in any specifically gay situation for over 2 decades. The age of those I found most desirable remained fixed around the 18 to 25 age bracket - the age my sort-of-partner had been when we hooked up in 1990. Even after we split I still found that age group attractive.
But over the past couple of years I've made more gay friends, and do assorted 'gay group' things (like the recent London Zoo gay day), although I still have no contact whatsoever with the scene. And I've been very aware that I am now looking at guys in their thirties and early forties (I'm 50) as potential partners.
On the "genetic causes" thing, there is some evidence from cross-cultural surveys that the sisters of gay men tend to have more (and more 'successful') children. This may support your hypothesis of a gay gene complex leading gay men to be more nurturing of children, which could tend to express itself most with nearest available kids - any of their own, plus nieces and nephews. Or it could be that a gene complex which in men leads to homosexuality could in women lead to more successful child-rearing.
I suspect that it isn't to do with most gay men not having children of their own - historically, I think most men who are primarily homosexual have tended to marry and have kids.
"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
|
|
|
The last few posts are both interesting and thought provoking.
I can't agree with Marc - I think he is, in effect, reciting the gay mantra on the topic. Merely stating that something is so does not make it so; the impartial jury is still out, and likely to remain out for some time to come, on the question of nature as against nurture as the source of homosexual behaviour. For example, correlation between irregularities in the brains of young rams and a tendency for such rams to attempt sexual coupling with other rams is undoubtedly interesting, but the species gap between sheep and humans is so wide that this discovery may have no relevance whatsoever to the human condition. I should however make it absolutely clear that I am not suggesting that homosexuality is a consciously chosen path - that seems to fly in the face of logic in today's world - but the human mind is susceptible to external influences even before leaving the womb. There must, therefore, be a case for the proposition that homosexual behaviour MAY arise from unconscious stimuli at a very early age.
Turning to paedophilia, which is defined as sexual love for children, I accept that the desire to dominate must be significant, but there is no convincing research to suggest that such a desire is invariably present; if anything, the evidence points the other way. Similar behaviour does occur in other animals - some central African primates (I think the bonobo, but I could be wrong) indulge in sexual activity between young males and older males, with no apparent displays of domination. And, of course, at various times in history, such behaviour between humans has been not only tolerated but actively encouraged; the extensive literature of Ancient Greece does't suggest that domination had any significant part to play.
I think Marc may well have a point in relation to the preponderance of heterosexual, as opposed to homosexual, paedophile behaviour. Of course, in purely numerical terms this is inevitable, but it is evident (not from my personal research, I assure you!) that the bias in heterosexual and homosexual child pornography is significantly different. At the hard-core end of the scale, the majority of heterosexual child pornography involves adult-child activity, whilst homosexual child pornography predominantly focusses upon child-child activity. I'm not entirely sure what this means, but it obviously reflects demand, as the pornography industry - like any other - is commercially driven.
As regards the more extreme deviations, I again accept the possibility of what Marc suggests. On the other hand, it seems to me unlikely that the attraction is in every case learned behaviour; surely there must be some predisposition to encourage the novice to experiment?
In short, I think that the whole spectrum of sexual behaviour is of a complexity well beyond our current state of knowledge. We may have preferred outcomes, but we simply do not yet know the truth.
Moving on to Deeej's post, I echo NW's appreciation of the ideas put forward - definitely original and thought-provoking! The comments which follow are just thoughts which come to mind - I'm not criticising, just musing!
I'm not sure about the 'peer' concept, if only because it has only recently become a widespread trend in Western society. Marriages involving partners of widely differing ages were quite common until the first quarter of the twentieth century. Some, though by no means all, were effectively arranged marriages, but our forebears seem to have had regard to factors other than beauty and common age.
I'm much impressed by the suggestion that separation from the gay lifestyle may freeze our ideals of attraction at that point in time. Certainly that chimes with my own experience, and clearly with NW's experience, too. On the other hand, I'm less sure about the role of physical beauty in securing nurture for children; the maternal instinct seems to me to be a powerful force without any discernable visual element.
As regards Deeej's genetic argument, it IS attractive, but the theory of evolution does admit the possibility of the development of entirely useless genetic traits - or, put another way, not every gene on the helix contributes to the survival of the species.
And finally, I agree that as we get older, our 'field of attraction' ages with the objects of our attraction - but does this necessarily limit us to peer attraction?
NW's response underlines the validity of Deeej's thinking, but I particularly agree with his final point. I think it's undeniably true that most intrinsically gay men marry and have children, though hopefully this will be less common as we increasingly achieve the freedom to be ourselves, rather than the creatures society expects us to be. There is however a distinct lack of research into the inheritance of a 'gay gene' - if such a gene exists. If homosexuality is genetic, it must by definition be inherited and thus the likelihood of the child of a gay father being gay (even if the gene is recessive) must be greater than the odds in the population as a whole. Does anyone know of any substantive research in this area?
Finally, in response to Timmy's comments, I cannot conceive of any child being cute to the point of nausea. Cuteness has never, in my case, given rise to nausea, though it HAS caused other reactions!
I do find Timmy's last paragraph particularly interesting; it possibly deserves a thread of its own. What DOES may a young child sexually flirtatious? I don't accept all the crap about 'innocence'; they know - at least in broad terms - what they are doing, but what leads them to do it?
Sorry for the length of this dissertation, but I do find this subject interesting, if we look at the real issues and avoid the usual complacent responses.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm...This should probably belong to its own thread, but...
I think being gay could be a way of society (Even though they consiously disagree with it) limiting its gross population growth. Think about it...though its by no means proven (as far as my research for related research is concerned, gayness could be a way of limiting population growth by (subconsiously or in some weird way the human mind works) creating people who don't want to multiply with a fertile (as in male-male, or female-female, even though they would be fertile male-female) mate.
It is also a strange fact, though in some ways related (Even though deeej would UNDOUBTABLY disagree...as i can't find proof of this online) that, for example after a war people subconsiously make more boys (disregard the babies killed or put up for adoption). Right after a war, more boys are born in the first place, all of a sudden due to natural selection (and i know i have read it somewhere in my school geology work), perhaps in the same way gays are born to LIMIT population growth by natural selection or in some way, just as boys are born after a war automatically to replenish those that died (and i know it isn't chosen, but it happens, the amount of boys:girls changes from almost 1:1 to sometimes 2:1 or even 3:1)
I know ive taken some wild turns to prove my theory in the most unrelated ways...but...maybe this is a reason for gay people to be born, and, even though there seems to be a gay baby boom for the last few years (this could just be that more are open about it in the last few years, or it could be that there are more gays born, i lay towards the later, and im still looking for proof here)
In conclusion to my wild and wacky post, I think as population goes up on the earth, people naturaly make more gays to limit it.
What do you think?
And please, i don't have proof for anything, and i don't necesarily agree with what i sayd, but its just a theory. And without theories to prove wrong, we might never find one that can be proven right. So coments welcome (as always) but dont crucify me for opening this can of worms
Thank you. Bye for now
Dee
Post Script...sorry for the long post
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not trying to beat you into submission at all; I'm just summarising my objections to that argument from our conversation last night.
As far as I can see there are various problems with the suggestion that gay people are a reaction to overpopulation.
Primarily, there is no mechanism for triggering it. Suppose that the body (through a quirk of evolution) had a biological trigger that said "make this person gay". How would it be turned on? The trigger would have to be something that the human race would have encountered for thousands of years. It would have to be something that was beneficial during both times of plenty and times of scarcity to remain in our genome all that time. And finally, it would have to respond to a biological stimulus that appears during times of overpopulation, but not underpopulation. (Or conceivably vice versa.) And I can't think of one.
Not to mention the fact that while parts of the world are suffering from overpopulation, Western Europe is suffering from rapidly decreasing rates of reproduction, and yet we still have a lot of gay people. (In the UK, the average is 1.8 children per couple, I believe.)
Incidentally, I don't think there has ever been a ratio of babies 3:1 in favour of boys on anything beyond a minute scale. Ever. It just sounds too improbable to be true -- if so, we would surely have heard about it. Imagine the difficulties that such a generation would have at school, finding partners, etc. Yes, you do get funny ratios in China and India where it is terribly important to a family to get a boy, but that does not take into account other factors such as falsified figures, abortion, abandonement and so on.
Finally, I don't think there is really any evidence that there are more gay people now than there used to be. In societies where it was traditional to partake in homosexual behaviour (Ancient Greece, yet again) a very high percentage of the population were at least bisexual. And as anyone who has been to an English public school can tell you, in the absence of the fairer sex it's almost expected that you'll find some of the other boys (especially younger boys) attractive. It's just more acceptable to live a gay lifestyle these days, rather than getting married and/or committing oneself to a life of celibacy as one might have done in the past.
I wonder if, by no longer marrying to cover their attraction (and hence having children) as much as before, gay men are now creating a strong selection pressure *against* themselves? Could this mean that our days are numbered? Perhaps people like Timmy and Cossie are our only hope!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, the embarrassment!
Abandonment. Abandonment. Abandonment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i see ur points deeej, what about our other posters? what do u all think?
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Being gay has nothing to do with population density.
We have wars and pandemic to control overpopulation.
The more you all try to justify/realize being gay the furthur you get from the answer.
We are gay because we are not hetero.
Heteros are gay because they are not gay.
We are who we are it is just that simple.
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 have a few remarks here, and regret not joining this thread sooner.
On genetics: Genes mostly predispose for any non-trivial thing. Trivial things are eye color, hair color and the like. For the rest, many genes are involved and environment plays a role for whther the predisposition will activate. And since there are many things that happen at random in the world and such, it won't be likely that we find a "gay button". Especially if you add the "degrees of sexuality" as in somewhat homo/somewhat hetero.
On ancient greece: Don't forget that the reason for their behaviour was largely cultural, as in artificial, because woman were seen as without a soul, and thus having intercourse with a man was "more worthy" etc. (Insofar I remember)
As for the "why gayness exists" - well, don't forget that genes sometimes come in packets, so that useful gene X in terms of evolution can carry with it genes Y and Z that are not useful. Gayness could be a simple by-product. (And before somebody pounces on me, so what if it is, I share Marc's opinion that we should not care too much) On the other hand, knowledge is intresting all by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Some interest points have been raised in the past 24 hours.
I think I'm with Deeej rather than Dee on the broad concept of gayness as a biological response to overpopulation. On the other hand, I do have doubts about his dismissal of the possibility of triggers to vary the male/female birth ratio. Despite the enormous advances in recent years, there's still a huge amount to be discovered about the working of the human genome. I'm no expert, but it seems at least a possibility that dietary factors could influence the male/female balance. Wars do generally result in changes of diet as food become scarcer; could that change be a trigger to move the balance in favour of male births? If we accept the presumption that in the early days of humanity males were the food providers, a bias to male births in times of poorer diet would make perfect evolutionary sense. I'm not trying to lead discussion in this direction - I just wanted to make the point that external triggers were at least a possibility.
On the point about population growth and decline, I do admit difficulty in imagining a trigger. As Deeej implied, population change is to a very substantial extent culturally driven. Deeej mentioned the cultural need for boy children in China and India as a factor encouraging a rising birthrate, whilst in Western Society female emancipation is certainly a very significant factor driving the birthrate down. And, of course, medical advances in the past century have hugely reduced infant mortality. Over a relatively short timescale, I can't see how the natural selection process can kick in; how can the human genome 'know' what we are doing under the influence of culture and medicine?
So ... I don't think I can accept Dee's theory.
I thoroughly agree with Marc's philosophy that it is wise to accept that we are what we are. I've eventually succeeded in doing that, but - as Silfer says - knowledge is interesting for its own sake. I wouldn't advocate philosophical acceptance of a tractable but potentially terminal illness; in that sphere the determination to exert some control over our destinies has been the driving force behind medical discovery. As a parallel, if at some point in the future genetic research provided us with the opportunity to switch off the 'gay' button and become fully-functioning heterosexuals, I would applaud the discovery because it would provide the individual with a choice. (Btw, in case you think I'm completely heretical, I would strongly oppose any arrangement which transferred that choice to a parent or any other party.)
Just in passing, Silfer in his final paragraph expressed more lucidly than I could the fact that apparently useless genes can survive hundreds of generations of natural selection, so it's dangerous to dismiss a genetic theory because the proposition involves no discernable evolutionary benefit.
And finally - in his last paragraph Deeej floated the possibility that 'people like Timmy and Cossie are our only hope.' If he's right - YOU'RE ALL DOOMED, I TELL YOU ... DOOMED!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm... I now declare my theory an almost total flop...and i declare that its most probably crap
As for cossie's last statement "YOU'RE ALL DOOMED, I TELL YOU ... DOOMED!" I can simply chuckle in amusement and withold comment as it wouldn't like to incur anyone's wrath.
So... what with a thourougly interesting thread so far, i think a few good essays could be written, but I cannot come up with any other theories about anything for a while, except maybe one or two that would do justice to Bill O'reily's methods, and I'm not yet prepared to go down that road to prove a point, nor fall down the hole or conservatism.
That useless bit of info shared... i think ill watch and wait for a new thread of interest to develop
Hugs to all
Prof. Dee
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deeej...your spelling *shakes head and chuckles*
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> Finally, in response to Timmy's comments, I cannot conceive of any child being cute to the point of nausea. Cuteness has never, in my case, given rise to nausea, though it HAS caused other reactions!
I have some sets of two words for you here: "Bonnie" and "Langford"; "Jimmy" and "Osmond"; "Macaulay" and "Culkin" (however his forename is spelt!) I truly mena "cute-to-the-point-of-nausea" as a classification.
>
> I do find Timmy's last paragraph particularly interesting; it possibly deserves a thread of its own. What DOES may a young child sexually flirtatious? I don't accept all the crap about 'innocence'; they know - at least in broad terms - what they are doing, but what leads them to do it?
There is an innocence. It is the adult's job therefore not to succumb. A child knows it is making some sort of connection but not what sort. Even so the body langauge and eye contact is astounding, and it does start to remove rational, adult, civilised thought.
As adults we bear the absolute responsibility for saying "no".
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc wrote:
> We are gay because we are not hetero. Heteros are gay because they are not gay. We are who we are it is just that simple.<
I have always maintained that you make very acute observations. I think this one is one of the very best so far. We are what we are because we are what we are. Do heteros spend all their time trying to work out why they are not homo? If we expect the world to accept us as we are let's start with ourselves! Sincerely, JFR
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to my personal definition, cute is a mannerism, not a measure of beauty. Cute is when you know you are appealing, and milk it for all it's worth.
There is not necessarily any correlation between attractiveness and cuteness, either. Macaulay Culkin is a good example -- he was never good-looking, but he did have that sickening air of cuteness that made old ladies go all googly-eyed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> if at some point in the future genetic research provided us with the opportunity to switch off the 'gay' button and become fully-functioning heterosexuals, I would applaud the discovery because it would provide the individual with a choice. (Btw, in case you think I'm completely heretical, I would strongly oppose any arrangement which transferred that choice to a parent or any other party.)
I'm playing devil's advocate here...
Suppose that the scientists of the future identified a mechanism for ensuring that all children born would be absolutely and entirely straight. Assume that it is as simple as a switch during pregnancy; it does not involve abortion of embryos or any other ethical implications; but also that it is permanent and irreversible.
Would there actually be any compelling reason for the parents, *regardless* of their beliefs or sexuality, not to apply it?
After all... gay people are generally unhappier than straight people, more prone to depression and suicide; they are frequently subject to prejudice; gay couples cannot reproduce on their own; as a minority, they have less political and social clout; it is harder to find a partner; and so on.
Who here would not have preferred to be straight, if they could have been? And even if you are happy *now*, how could your parents (or you, looking back) have known that when you were conceived? Statistically speaking, you'd be more likely to be happy if you were straight.
For that matter, do we even have any right to have a say in the matter?
Suppose a deaf parent denied his child surgery that would let him hear, because he himself was deaf and did not believe that hearing was necessary. Most people would contend that this was ethically unsound, because it would almost be a case of sour grapes -- denying the child the benefits that everyone else experiences purely because the parent could not appreciate them himself.
Why are we not the same -- believing our sexuality to be important soley because we happen to be gay? What can a gay person or couple achieve that a "normal" person or couple cannot? Nothing; in fact, reproductively speaking, much less.
Being gay is just an impediment to living a normal, happy life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That reasoning can be applied to any deviation from the norm. Thus, you risk ending up in Brave New World (or similar) with that reasoning, and nobody wants that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm...
>> Suppose that the scientists of the future identified a mechanism for ensuring that all children born would be absolutely and entirely straight. Assume that it is as simple as a switch during pregnancy; it does not involve abortion of embryos or any other ethical implications; but also that it is permanent and irreversible.
Would there actually be any compelling reason for the parents, *regardless* of their beliefs or sexuality, not to apply it?
Yes, there would be, deeej, perhaps those conservatists stay around (as they seem to do) after this genetic manipulation is possible, perhaps they (conservatives) wouldn't want to change anything about their children.
And im guessing here that we wont be able to prove or disprove that genes play a role in gayness in the forseeable future (30-35 years, maybe)
By that time, at the pace of social reform, will it necesarily be as big an ishue as it is now?
Will there still be presure that makes gay people "generally unhappier than straight people, more prone to depression and suicide" (because they are socially pressured) and will they still be "frequently subject to prejudice" (???) will they still be repressed "as a minority" (they will probably be a minority, though i dont know if they will still be opressed), will they still have "have less political and social clout" (perhaps they shall have it equal to their numbers as about one in ten) and will it still be "harder to find a partner" (when all gays can be open about it, freely, without comment or agresion, or homophobia) ?
If you think about it, if in a few years (maybe 80 or 90) would people prefer to be straight as aposed to gay? Why would they if its accepted and nobody thinks anything much about it?
Lets think on this. And I'll see what to respond to the other parts of the post, later, when my coffee hasn't gone cold by now...
Prof. Dee
A truth told with bad intent
Beats all the lies you can invent
-William Blake
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
We already test for Downs Syndrome during pregnancy and abort for it. yet many Downs kids have full and happy and long lives. Those of my generation can vouch for the fact that there are fewer Downs kids today than in our youth.
How is homosexuality different? Apply logic not emotion when you answer
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the obvious answer is for me that unhappiness/social prejudice etc. etc. (see Deej's post) correlate with homosexuality, while Down's syndrome causes them. Down's also causes physical and mental disabilities, which homosexuality does not.
However, what is a disease, or, what is abnormal behaviour, is not always logically determined, nor are there precise definitions. My psychology book says the following: "Abnormality is largely a social judgement. Behaviour that is judged to reflect a psychological disorder typically is 1) Distressing to the person or to other people 2) Dysfunctional, maladaptive, or self-defeating and/or 3) socially deviant in a way that arouses discomfort in others and cannot be attributed to environmental causes." (Summary of the part about abnormality, in the chapter about disorders) Of course, this is about psychological disorders, but much is valid for physical ones.
Note the many imprecise terms: Dysfunctional, maladaptive, socially deviant, discomfort, distressing, etc.
So logic is not the only factor by which we decide what is a disorder/what is "wrong".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dee,
Firstly, remember this is a thought experiment. It assumes that homosexuality is found to be genetic, and that there is something that can be done about it prenatally. I don't know about the first, but I sincerely doubt the second. Otherwise we assume society is the same.
So, to address your points:
> perhaps those conservatists stay around (as they seem to do) after this genetic manipulation is possible, perhaps they (conservatives) wouldn't want to change anything about their children.
I think that there would be quite an interesting conflict of interest here. Imagine the horror of a ultra right-wing conservative redneck on being told that his own flesh and blood will likely grow up to be a faggot! I'm pretty sure that at that stage it comes down to the lesser of two evils: nip it in the bud in a hypothetical quick, painless procedure (genetically or hormonally modify the embryo), or for the parents to be doomed to shame for the rest of their lives.
> Will there still be presure that makes gay people "generally unhappier than straight people, more prone to depression and suicide" (because they are socially pressured)
> and will they still be "frequently subject to prejudice" (???)
Let's assume that this is a few decades in the future. In Europe, maybe prejudice will be gone altogether. But I reckon it will stick in more backward societies (especially religious ones). And I include the United States in those.
> will they still be repressed "as a minority" (they will probably be a minority, though i dont know if they will still be opressed), will they still have "have less political and social clout" (perhaps they shall have it equal to their numbers as about one in ten)
Even with representation of 1 in 10 (and I contest this figure, incidentally; even if 1 in 10 have homosexual or bisexual leanings, many reject a gay/homosexual lifestyle. But that's another topic in itself) gay people will still be in a minority. Society will still be geared towards the wishes of the majority. When people are do not conform to the norm, they will always find their lives a little harder. They may not encounter prejudice directly, but they will constantly have to combat other people's assumptions about them.
> and will it still be "harder to find a partner" (when all gays can be open about it, freely, without comment or agresion, or homophobia) ?
Yes, always, I think. The UK is a pretty liberal place these days, but that doesn't mean that it's easy to find a partner. The odds are still stacked against you; if you find someone attractive, the chances that they will find you attractive too is much lower than if you are straight.
Dee, of course it's possible to counter all of my arguments. But maybe what you're missing is that I'm on your side here. In my initial post I specifically pointed out that I was playing devil's advocate. I would love to think that people would find the prospect of being gay so wonderful that they would choose it for their children. But I honestly don't think it's likely. Let's ignore the issue of prejudice and being a minority and all the other little things that make being gay more difficult, and assume that gay people are just as happy as straight ones in all respects. Even then there is still the major problem of reproduction. Parents want to see their line continued, and a gay couple will never be able to reproduce naturally and simply in the way a heterosexual couple can.
All in all, it's just simpler for a parent to choose for his child to be straight. After all, how many straight people do you come across wishing they were gay?
David
P.S. I think it's very unlikely that anything like the situation I outlined will ever happen. The mechanism is wrong; the chances are that even if it were possible to screen out potentially gay embryos, it would only be possible to abort them rather than turn them straight. In any case, such a procedure would only be possible via in-vitro fertilisation. I should imagine that the vast majority of children will be conceived naturally for a long time to come.
This topic has given me some interesting ideas for a screenplay. Unfortunately, I have a suspicion that gay politics don't have very great mass-market appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, Dewald -- I think I went overboard with the bold. It sounds a bit condescending. I didn't mean to be rude!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... isn't as easy as it first appears. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, it's one of the many words which have developed different connotations in Britain and the United States. British usage - 'clever, shrewd, ingenious' - certainly lends itself to the idea of mannerisms, and of course I'd normally be British to the core in my use of language. (Strains of 'Land of Hope and Glory' rise to a crescendo!)
However, I suppose I've been browsing too many gay sites over the years, because I've certainly picked up the primary United States usage, which is simply 'attractive'. And as attraction is in the eye of the beholder, I stand by my original statement; B Langford, J Osmond and M Culkin certainly induced nausea, but in my eyes they definitely weren't attractive and thus could not qualify as cute!
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
I am setting my observatoons at a child. Let us say 8-9 years old.
Those I feel like protecting and nurturing
Apology 
