Will most Americans be gay by the turn of the next century?

[xyz48B]

3 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

I don't think anyone over 40 grew up understanding those concepts.

You’d be wrong.

Sexuality as a social and biological phenomenon was well explored already then. You realize that 50 years ago was 1972? There were kids around in 1970s who most definitely knew what “gay” meant. Those are my parents’ formative years and they definitely knew what “gay” was. My mother especially because my great uncle was gay…and the whole family knew. It was a scandal, but they knew.

[+ Tygerscent]

7 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

I don't think anyone over 40 grew up understanding those concepts.

In the 70's ...People married and raised families....if you didn't you were "queer".

Nothing in the middle was ever discussed.

I spent most of my childhood thinking I was unique in my complete dismissal of gender factoring in to who I found attractive.

I announced on my first day of Kindergarten to my mother that I met a girl who I thought was cute and a boy who I thought was good looking.

My mother explained ..."you can like the boy as a friend but you only like girls for their looks."  So being a good kid...I got the message and figured out a strategy that worked for me...KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT and go along with the script until nobody is looking.😉

 

 

Your secret would have been safe with me… You could’ve come to my house and we could’ve played naked in my tent outside. My parents wouldn’t of been upset that we were two boys being naked together. They would’ve been been concerned that we were having advanced sexual relationships at an early age and probably asked us to wait until we were a little bit older when we better understood sexuality.

  When my niece came out to her dad at age 10, saying that she liked girls and wanted to have sex with them~  
 My brother responded the same way that my parents responded to us.
 He told her that there was responsibility associated with sex and asked her to wait a few years before having sex with anybody, (regardless of gender), adding that with sex came emotional and physical responsibility but, that those things would come with age and general life experience. 
 He asked her to focus on things like school and friendships so that when she became sexual, no matter who she slept with, she would understand better the foundations of having a relationship with somebody over all and how to more appropriately respond to both her relationship choices and sexual body urges. 

 For our family, the approach was perhaps a cultural difference more than a generation difference. 

 When I was younger, I was exploring sex at very early age without a gender preference~ By the time I was 12 I had a fairly sophisticated concept of the difference between “love” and physical hormonal horniness~ Where “Love” is something more psychological and emotional that can be expressed thru loving actions and where being sexual with another person is an expression of your affection/like/love for another individual but, where ones sexual nature is not the foundation of love or like psychological or emotional relationships~ 
  More simply: Love can be expressed thru sex but, sex and lust are not necessarily Love~ 
 
 That really affected the types of relationships I pursued during the course of my lifetime~ My “relationships” have been long term bonding ones and never based on sex although sex has been part of those relationships in general.
 Growing up, I had a number of male friends that I sex with~ It was “buddy sex”/“Sport sex” but also, “friendship sex”… We also had relationships with other genders that were more typical of “partnershiping”~ 

 Originally, I was in an arranged marriage situation but, my “to be wife” walked up to me outside one day when we were 11 Yrs old and told me we would not be getting married because she liked girls~ That was the end of that… 

 She still had relationships and sex with boys but, went in to partner with a woman who she has apparently remained with all this time. They have a farm somewhere in Wisconsin.
 
  I had several long term relationships with woman because I wanted many children… My last mixed gender relationship was with an identifying woman and we had no children but, did have lots of fuzzy buddies that we considered family~ The boundaries of our relationship changed, (not due to sexual preferences and the love between us remains to this day), and we separated~ When what happened, I made a conscious decision to pursue a sexual life relationship with another male. 
 
 The overall all effect of these experiences is that, while I am a sexual being, sex and any sexual preference is not my “identity”… other things on the personal identity list are higher priority. 
 
 As I’m reading the responses in this thread, I am hearing peoples past influences and now would like to hear where people are with their personal identity. Is your personal identity predominately about your gender or your sexuality or is it other things~? Are your present day relationships founded in emotional/psychology bonding or physical/sexual bonding~?
 
 Growing up in a post 60’s/70’s environment there was also the “free love” concept~ People in the 60’s had a concept of non-traditional sexuality and family relationships~ Speaking specifically about culture in the states, the youth then came out of the 50’s mentality and diverged into something different as they hit puberty in the 60’s and 70’s. Maybe some of that led to Stonewall and the “gay rights” movements later on~  
 Some people might remember the song by David Crosby: Triad… David mentions “Sister lovers” and “water brothers”… “and in time maybe many others”~ (it’s a Beautiful song on many levels and the link is below). 

 “The term "water brothers" is from the book “Stranger In A Strange Land” by Robert A. Heinlein, which explored (among other things) non-traditional marriage/family structures. The term originated on Mars, and it indicated the deepest relationship possible. Its literal meaning is "someone with whom you have shared water," a very selfless gesture on the water-parched planet.” …Crosby states in interviews that this is not merely, (a song), "about" three-way relationships, but that the song "happened, several times." Crosby was involved for some time in the late 1990s-early 2000s with both Melissa Etheridge and her partner, Julie Cypher, and was the biological father of their two children.

So, I think depending on where you grew up and how, the ideas of non gender specific relationships and sexuality were out there~ 
 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Tygerscent

[pubic_assistance]

7 hours ago, xyz48B said:

You’d be wrong.

I was talking about bisexuality.

Once again...you didn't read what I wrote before you responded.

[pubic_assistance]

9 hours ago, Unicorn said:

there may be people whose sexuality is bi, pan, or fluid,

"May be" ?

Um....bisexuality is more common than pure absolute homosexuality.

[xyz48B]

6 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

"May be" ?

Um....bisexuality is more common than pure absolute homosexuality.

I like to allow people to self-identify.

Can I appreciate feminine beauty? Absolutely. Do I desire to fuck people with feminine beauty? No.

Appreciating someone’s attractiveness doesn’t mean you are sexually allured by them. As difficult as it might be to accept, some people – the majority of people – fall into either of the binary sexualities, gay or straight. Bisexuality isn’t as common as so many think.

[xyz48B]

12 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I was talking about bisexuality.

Once again...you didn't read what I wrote before you responded.

You fit the narrative to your own desiring to make sure you appear right. Reminds me of about 46.9% of the US population. Alternative facts…

It’s so puzzling to me that after years of reading and speaking and writing in several languages with mutual intelligibility, I fail – in your opinion – to comprehend what you write. Could it be the source and not the target? I still think it’s just opportunism saying, “Oh, I was wrong, so you clearly misunderstood because I can’t possibly ge wrong!”

[Guest]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

"May be" ?

Um....bisexuality is more common than pure absolute homosexuality.

Well, I once met someone who paid for sex with men and women, so it follows that he's bi. But where did you get the statistic that bisexuality is more common? I have massive numbers of friends and acquaintances who identify as gay, lesbian, or straight. I don't know any who identify as bi. Of course, my personal experience doesn't establish a fact, but my suspicion is that true bisexuality is fairly uncommon. 

[Rudynate]

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Well, I once met someone who paid for sex with men and women, so it follows that he's bi. But where did you get the statistic that bisexuality is more common? I have massive numbers of friends and acquaintances who identify as gay, lesbian, or straight. I don't know any who identify as bi. Of course, my personal experience doesn't establish a fact, but my suspicion is that true bisexuality is fairly uncommon. 

[Rudynate]

B

Just now, Rudynate said:

10 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Well, I once met someone who paid for sex with men and women, so it follows that he's bi. But where did you get the statistic that bisexuality is more common? I have massive numbers of friends and acquaintances who identify as gay, lesbian, or straight. I don't know any who identify as bi. Of course, my personal experience doesn't establish a fact, but my suspicion is that true bisexuality is fairly uncommon. 

Be careful of speculating from an n=1.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Gay and Straight and Bisexuality are all labels that will probably lose relevance. Hopefully, they all will die someday. 

[xyz48B]

57 minutes ago, latbear4blk said:

Gay and Straight and Bisexuality are all labels that will probably lose relevance. Hopefully, they all will die someday. 

Why?

[+ José Soplanucas]

4 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

Why?

Fluidity

[xyz48B]

55 minutes ago, latbear4blk said:

Fluidity

Meh. Overrated and I’m doubtful most people care

[pubic_assistance]

17 hours ago, xyz48B said:

You fit the narrative to your own desiring to make sure you appear right.

No. When I start a conversational thread, I don't need to "fit" anything. Its already my point I am making. What I am saying is that you have responded to at least five of my comments recently with statements that have nearly nothing to do with what I just said. Taking the conversation into a completely different direction of your own It's called  "conversational hijacking" ..It doesn't matter if you speak 20 languages...it's still an annoying habit. Happy to discuss ..I don't need to agree ..but it would be nice if you first understood the point I made first before you respond to something I didn't say.

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

it would be nice if you first understood the point I made first before you respond to something I didn't say.

You got to stick to a point for me to respond to it. You skirt about saying one thing then insisting I misunderstood what you said when you clearly said it. Furthermore, this was a conversation you started. The thread was started by @Unicorn. It appears others here have issue with the content of your posts too…particularly as it comes to bear on the statistical nature of bisexuality.

Finally…Why don’t you hide me if you find my comments so annoying? 

Edited February 26, 2022 by xyz48B

[pubic_assistance]

17 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I don't know any who identify as bi.

Unlike gay people ...It's not unusual for bisexual people to keep their sexual identity to themselves. As a matter of fact, Kinsey Institute noted recently that less than 15% of bisexual people are "out".  This is understandable. At least in MY experience, the gay community is certainly not very welcoming. I've been called a closet case multiple times over many years by gay men. It seems to really irritate many gays that some people CAN and DO make decisions about their sexual identity. It screws with their "born this way" narrative.

[pubic_assistance]

34 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

It appears others here have issue with the content of your posts too…particularly as it comes to bear on the statistical nature of bisexuality.

Again...you ignored my last response.

I specifically wrote that YOU ARE FREE TO DISAGREE WITH MY OPINION.

My issue is that are off on wild tangents in response to MY opinions, (and not Unicorn's) about things I didn't say.

Disagree all you like, but don't keep responding to ME unless you read what I wrote first, and respond to THAT.

It would keep things moving along in a mature adult conversational manner.

Thanks

 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by pubic_assistance
punctuation

[xyz48B]

2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Again...you ignored my last response.

No. But whatever. It’s not worth it. You do you.

[pubic_assistance]

17 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

It’s not worth it.

I agree. Your responses are always off on a tangent....so it doesn't really contribute anything to what I said.

Please just respond to other people if you can't actually respond to what I said.

That would be nice. thanks

[pubic_assistance]

On 2/24/2022 at 5:39 PM, Tygerscent said:

I think depending on where you grew up and how, the ideas of non gender specific relationships and sexuality were out there~ 

Absolutely. That's an excellent point. Culturally some parts of the US were behind others. Would you mind sharing ( out of curiosity ) where YOU grew up, Tygerscent ?  Your personal story reeks of late 60's Bay Area culture...so curious when and where your lovely childhood took place.  Thanks

[xyz48B]

25 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I agree. Your responses are always off on a tangent....so it doesn't really contribute anything to what I said.

Please just respond to other people if you can't actually respond to what I said.

That would be nice. thanks

Nice for you. Sure. I don’t rightly care. I enjoy it.

Why don’t you hide me if I don’t contribute anything worthwhile in your opinion? Save yourself the bile. It’s as easy as checking out your settings. 👍🏻 😉 It’s not my responsibility to accommodate your wants or needs. Take your independence into your own hands and be responsible for your own self. It’s my freedom to respond to you; yours to ignore me.

 

[pubic_assistance]

1 minute ago, xyz48B said:

It’s not my responsibility to accommodate your wants or needs.

Did I say it was ?
Again...you keep writing your own narratives.

I asked nicely to stop.

So I will ask again. Please stop.

 

[xyz48B]

I didn’t know you had to explicitly say something for me to make a comment as it related. I was extrapolating. As long as you post publicly, I’m allowed to respond – either directly or indirectly.

See – conversation develops off one person saying one thing and someone else responding with something different but related.* I can’t help you don’t like how things I say are related to what you say. But just because you ask “nicely” – and I might add you’ve been anything but “nice” to me…words like “disrespectful” and “patronizing” come to mind instead of “nice” – doesn’t mean I have to do as you request. Just like I requested you and you ignored me. So I’ll ask nicely too…

Please. Hide me. You’ll be happier. 👍🏻 

Or another option…Don’t respond to me.

I’m asking nicely 😊 

*Your comment to @Tygerscentabout his upbringing had nothing to do explicitly with what he said, but you extrapolated from that some conclusions you wanted to confirm. By your logic, I shouldn’t do that because it wasn’t explicit. I almost think you just want me to shut up period. 

[+ José Soplanucas]

6 hours ago, xyz48B said:

Meh. Overrated and I’m doubtful most people care

Sure

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Rudynate said:

B

Be careful of speculating from an n=1.

Of course, I realize that this is not a scientific study. But if you want n=2, I asked my beau "Chris," who's one of the most popular people I know (whenever we go anywhere, he always knows at least half a dozen people), and he said he only knows one bi person "and he doesn't live around here." You may have an aversion to being "labeled" for whatever reason, but I generally find labels useful as it helps me anticipate certain likely behaviors, desires, and so on. Who might make a good couple, for example, when the label is regarding sexual orientation. I find it curious that you're defensive to the point of hostility in this string. No one has put down people who describe themselves as bi or fluid, that I can tell, yet you seem lit up like a firecracker.