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

[Rudynate]

4 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

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. 

A little thin-skinned today are we?

[xyz48B]

50 minutes ago, Unicorn said:

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.

This is what most people like too. When you ask people to change how they’ve thought about categories they thought they’ve understood, it’s often not so much they don’t like the new way of thinking as much as it’s they don’t like being challenged on what they thought they knew. People don’t like predictably and categories and labels help with that.

Problems of course arise when labels are used to limit people, not just describe and distinguish them.

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, Unicorn said:

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. 

Probably because gays do tend to be very dismissive toward bisexual man. I have been called a "closet-case" for decades.

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, xyz48B said:

’m allowed to respond – either directly or indirectly.

Correct.

I was simply asking you to stick to the subject when you respond to my comments instead of pretending I said something other than what I stated. Why is that so difficult for you ?

You keep trying to rationalize hijacking conversation as normal.

[xyz48B]

38 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Probably because gays do tend to be very dismissive toward bisexual man. I have been called a "closet-case" for decades.

Sounds like you may not be reading what’s written and responding how’s you choose, according to a narrative of your own creation.

[OCClient]

On 2/24/2022 at 11:11 AM, Unicorn said:

Yikes! Anyone? Speak for yourself... As a teen in the 70s, I definitely knew I was extremely attracted to men, not at all to women, and I knew what the word gay meant. I had heard many say that young men went through "phases," so I at first didn't know whether this was a "phase," but as time went on, and certainly by the time I was 17, I knew I was gay and would always be gay. 

While I don't deny that there may be people whose sexuality is bi, pan, or fluid, there are definitely those of us who are extremely strongly attracted to men, and totally unattracted physically to women. Autopsy studies have been done comparing the brain anatomy of gay men and straight men, and the brains are physically different. As far as I know, these studies have not been extended to those who identify as bi, pan, or fluid, and I'd be very interested myself to see the results of those studies. 

Yes!

As a youth I even had bad dreams about marrying.  Was pre marriage  equality of course.

Even though I had a crush on a girl in grade school I was ultimately queer as a 3 dollar bill.

@Unicorn Thank you for sharing the article.  

I especially liked how it recognizes women were more apt to identify as Bi.  IMO  academic study of LGBTQ people ought to recognize that males vs. females may experience all kinds of different factors leading to how we self identify. 

e.g. We know there is data showing the probability a man will identify as gay increases as the number of older brothers increases.   I always ask (rhetorically) if a similar study of women will be published.

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, OCClient said:

Males vs. females may experience all kinds of different factors leading to how we self identify. 

This would be interesting reading. Especially the “nurture” component in such a study.

1 hour ago, OCClient said:

The probability a man will identify as gay increases as the number of older brothers increases.

I’ve heard that before. Many times. And it always makes me wonder what happened to me – the oldest. Of course there are other first-borns who are gay, but it strikes me as an interesting bucking the trend if it’s  in fact biologically true that more older brothers increases a boy’s likelihood of identifying as gay. Is it more a factor of biology or socialization? Maybe by the time more sons roll around, parents approach caregiving in a different way than they do their oldest son. Maybe that different approach is evolutionary? Questions…

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

This would be interesting reading. Especially the “nurture” component in such a study.

I’ve heard that before. Many times. And it always makes me wonder what happened to me – the oldest. Of course there are other first-borns who are gay, but it strikes me as an interesting bucking the trend if it’s  in fact biologically true that more older brothers increases a boy’s likelihood of identifying as gay. Is it more a factor of biology or socialization? Maybe by the time more sons roll around, parents approach caregiving in a different way than they do their oldest son. Maybe that different approach is evolutionary? Questions…

Actually, it's probably something in the womb. Women who've had previous sons are more likely to produce antibodies to a protein involved in male fetal brain development:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/2/302

"Gay men have, on average, a greater number of older brothers than do heterosexual men, a well-known finding within sexual science. This finding has been termed the fraternal birth order effect. Strong scientific interest in sexual orientation exists because it is a fundamental human characteristic, and because its origins are often the focal point of considerable social controversy. Our study is a major advance in understanding the origins of sexual orientation in men by providing support for a theorized but previously unexamined biological mechanism—a maternal immune response to a protein important in male fetal brain development—and by beginning to explain one of the most reliable correlates of male homosexuality: older brothers."

(And, yes, I have at least one older heterosexual brother)

Edited February 26, 2022 by Unicorn

[Guest]

1 hour ago, OCClient said:

Yes!

As a youth I even had bad dreams about marrying.  Was pre marriage  equality of course.

...

I will confess that as a kid in the 70s, for some reason, I remember having dreams I'd marry Prince Andrew! 😲 If I only knew then. 🤨 Well, I guess it's not uncommon to dream of marrying a prince. I blame Disney. 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Unicorn

[Rudynate]

12 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Probably because gays do tend to be very dismissive toward bisexual man. I have been called a "closet-case" for decades.

Not me.  I do believe that it is a real phenomenon and I love 'em.  I am 90+% gay, but I do have a tiny bi streak that I could probably cultivate if I wanted to.

[Rudynate]

9 hours ago, Unicorn said:

I will confess that as a kid in the 70s, for some reason, I remember having dreams I'd marry Prince Andrew! 😲 If I only knew then. 🤨 Well, I guess it's not uncommon to dream of marrying a prince. I blame Disney. 

In his day, he was very sexy.

[pubic_assistance]

It's interesting that scientific study is still trying to defend the "born this way" narrative. If oldest males are less likely to be gay then it's pretty easily explained as a social phenomenon. Eldest males have tremendous pressure to carry on the family name ( and property in wealthy families). Yet...some "scientists" insist on reading this data as biology not sociology.

Edited February 26, 2022 by pubic_assistance

[pubic_assistance]

17 minutes ago, Rudynate said:

In his day, he was very sexy.

All the Queen's offspring had their fuckable years. Edward was my favorite and was in-fact, quite sexually active in his 20s with military men and other rough trade. Eventually married and produced children...but had his fun. No rumors of further mano-a-mano after marriage ..but one wonders.

Edited February 26, 2022 by pubic_assistance

[Rudynate]

22 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

All the Queen's offspring had their fuckable years. Edward was my favorite and was in-fact, quite sexually active in his 20s with military men and other rough trade. Eventually married and produced children...but had his fun. No rumors of further mano-a-mano after marriage ..but one wonders.

I don't think I have ever seen a pic of him - amazing.  Why do those Windsor men all go to seed they way they do?

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, pubic_assistance said:

It's interesting that scientific study is still trying to defend the "born this way" narrative. If oldest males are less likely to be gay then it's pretty easily explained as a social phenomenon. Eldest males have tremendous pressure to carry on the family name ( and property in wealthy families). Yet...some "scientists" insist on reading this data as biology not sociology.

I’m going to go with the scientists on it.

Thank you, @Unicorn, for the reasoned explanation based in evidence.

[xyz48B]

1 hour ago, Rudynate said:

I don't think I have ever seen a pic of him - amazing.  Why do those Windsor men all go to seed they way they do?

Did you see what happened to Phillip? He actually looked scary at the end…

[pubic_assistance]

2 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

Did you see what happened to Phillip? He actually looked scary at the end…

Phillip isn't a Windsor.

He's a Mountbatten

[xyz48B]

2 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Phillip isn't a Windsor.

He's a Mountbatten

Thank you. I’m aware… 😑 He still was scary as fuck in his old age.

 

[pubic_assistance]

5 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

I'm going to go with the scientists on it.

Of course you are.

There are many versions of this "science". And Psychologists have done their own research.

No one has any strong proof of the biology theories...but the sociological explanations are fairly simple to understand and logical. Following many examples of similar circumstances and results throughout many cultures.

 

[pubic_assistance]

3 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

still was scary as fuck in his old age.

 

I agree....although he was ( in MY opinion) quite dashing for many years prior to his 70s. He passed at quite an old age...and we all tend to shrivel like a raisin by our 90s

[xyz48B]

Just now, Rudynate said:

I used to get boners over Prince Phillip.

He and Lilabet made a very good looking pair. And their kids were good looking til…you know.

One of the 21st century’s greatest tragedies is watching the decline of William’s good looks…

[Rudynate]

5 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

I agree....although he was ( in MY opinion) quite dashing for many years prior to his 70s. He passed at quite an old age...and we all tend to shrivel like a raisin by our 90s

Not many here will remember newspapers from the 50s.  The Sunday paper always had a pictorial supplement and, back then, European royalty was always heavily featured.  As a little boy of 5 or 6 yo, I used to get boners over Prince Phillip.

[Rudynate]

17 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Phillip isn't a Windsor.

He's a Mountbatten

Or a Battenberg.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Keep debating nature vs nurture is absurd. We are both.

[xyz48B]

7 minutes ago, latbear4blk said:

Keep debating nature vs nurture is absurd. We are both.

It would be nice to see more holistic studies.