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

[+ José Soplanucas]

10 minutes ago, xyz48B said:

Or both nature and nurture.

It’s silly to think it’s all nurture.

I think you may have a reading and comprehension issue. Or my English is just fucked up. Take a read at Berger & Luckmann's book.

[Rudynate]

50 minutes ago, latbear4blk said:

100% agreed. But I do not think @Tygerscent is advocating for looking for an explanation or a cause for homosexuality. If I understand what he is saying, he is speaking of how the interactions between our individual biological traits and our particular social context will built how our sexuality is expressed. Rather than an hermeneutic, he is looking for a phenomenology. 

Of course, I may be wrong.

Right, I agree.  I doubt whether there is a single gene or gene sequence that determines sexual orientation.  I think it is a much more complex question than that.  But the genome can certainly determine behavioral tendencies and predispositions.

[pubic_assistance]

41 minutes ago, latbear4blk said:

I think you may have a reading and comprehension issue.

Constant responses that are disconnected from the conversation, would indicate there is some reading disability or cognitive issues. 

 

[+ José Soplanucas]

12 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Constant responses that are disconnected from the conversation, would indicate there is some reading disability or cognitive issues. 

 

Perhaps it is my bad English. Sometimes I do wonder what the distance is between what I mean to say, and what I am actually writing. But I think Berger and Luckmann are beyond any misreadings, if you have an average intelligence.

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, latbear4blk said:

Perhaps it is my bad English.

Xyz constantly responds to my posts with commentary that has nothing to do with what I just said.  I scored 100% on my Scholastic Aptitude Test for grammar...so its unlikely that both of us are getting the same disconnected responses because of our language skills.

[xyz48B]

I have perfectly fine reading comprehension, thank you… 🙄 

Your remarks, along those from @pubic_assistance, just show you don’t like what I said. That much is abundantly clear with the preponderance of interactions you two have with me in the forum over all. So you stoop to ad hominem attacks…

[+ José Soplanucas]

1 minute ago, pubic_assistance said:

Xyz constantly responds to my posts with commentary that has nothing to do with what I just said.  I scored 100% on my Scholastic Aptitude Test for grammar...so its unlikely that both of us are getting the same disconnected responses because of our language skills.

I am trying to keep an open mind.

[pubic_assistance]

From Berger and Luckman: " Society determines how long and in what manner the individual organism shall live… Society also directly penetrates the organism in its functioning, most importantly in respect to sexuality and nutrition. While both sexuality and nutrition are grounded in biological drives… biological constitution does not tell him where he should seek sexual release and what he should eat.”

Edited March 5, 2022 by pubic_assistance

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, latbear4blk said:

I think Berger and Luckmann are beyond any misreadings, if you have an average intelligence.

Exactly my thought.

Even simple observations such as the commonality of homosexual activity by formerly heterosexual men while incarcerated or the history of homosexual relationships in the Navy (when sailships spent many months at sea) ..should dismiss any argument for "born this way". Clearly social influences and environment have a strong affect in your choices of sexual partner(s).

 

[RadioRob]

Alright guys...  back on target or the thread will be closed.  

[+ Tygerscent]

On 2/27/2022 at 9:07 AM, Rudynate said:

Don't confuse lifestyle and sexual orientation.

It seems that is where some of the confusion is coming from in this thread, (and thus also outside of it): Life style being a different thing than orientation and in addition, innate potential of attraction acted on and nurtured over time… ie. If left alone without current cultural norms and preconceptions: would human beings have any particular preference on and individual to individual bases… and if so, would it remain constant or variable through life~?

[+ Tygerscent]

18 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Exactly my thought.

Even simple observations such as the commonality of homosexual activity by formerly heterosexual men while incarcerated or the history of homosexual relationships in the Navy (when sailships spent many months at sea) ..should dismiss any argument for "born this way". Clearly social influences and environment have a strong affect in your choices of sexual partner(s).

 

Trench buddies of WW2~ 

[+ Tygerscent]

2 hours ago, Rudynate said:

Right, I agree.  I doubt whether there is a single gene or gene sequence that determines sexual orientation.  I think it is a much more complex question than that.  But the genome can certainly determine behavioral tendencies and predispositions.

The whole genetic thing can be very complex… There are organisms out there that change sex either within their own lifetime or through generations depending on their environments ability to sustain them for through any particular form of reproduction.
 They may in their lifetime change from being male to female, (or visa versa), or becoming hermaphroditic or when there’s not enough food they pump out more males than females and when there’s an abundance of resources they pump out more females than males… It wouldn’t be too bizarre to consider that even amongst human beings, some part of homosexuality, heterosexuality, fluid sexuality, asexuality etc., might be based on similar circumstances~
  There’s a danger to accuracy when we try to lump everybody in every situation into categories that have generic/homogenized criteria when the reality of it all is more complex~ 

[xyz48B]

To think that biology doesn’t affect our behavior in all elements of existence is just ludicrous to me. We are biological beings, after all. Chemicals firing around inside us making us do all sorts of things. That doesn’t mean environment doesn’t also play a part. It would be just as ludicrous to say that it doesn’t. But just like everything in our complex existence as human beings, our sexuality has to be both biology and environment. Anyone who insists it’s all one or the other is deluding themselves – be they a layman or an expert in their field.

[+ Tygerscent]

On 2/28/2022 at 9:44 AM, xyz48B said:

I don’t understand…

Why is “born this way” such a terrible thing for sexual orientation?

We can choose how you live with your orientation, but you can’t choose your orientation. It can be a combo (and is) a combo of nurture and nature, but orientation is something you’re “given.” The lifestyle you choose can and will be in light if that orientation.

You can be gay and choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle…

Sexual orientation and lifestyle are different.

Born this Way theory is problematic in that people’s understanding of what that means is not just an understanding of the genetics behind a concept like that but, perhaps more so the politicized context in which it’s often used.  
 There have been numbers of generations where homosexuality was unacceptable… It would seem that during times when it is acceptable, (even marginally acceptable), you would be able to trace genetically where homosexuality came from in some family lineage… you would be able to determine whether it’s a maternal or paternal gene that’s being passed on and whether it’s dominant or recessive and what determines that being exhibited within an individual.  
 The picture is clearer in cases of Klinefelters, XYY syndrome or possibly something like acromegaly…  (Maybe even the way alcoholism can permanently alter genetics that shows up in progeny), etc., there are instances where genes are more apt to be expressed when under unusual environmental conditions… sickle cell anemia would be an example of that. It is actually a natural mutation that occurred in response to malaria~  The person that has it is affected by other things besides malaria.  
 Being homosexual (whether in the literal sense or having traits viewed as homosexual by non homosexuals), hasn’t always been acceptable in societies~   
 I’m sure there’s people out there that use the born this way card in their self defense without ever really knowing they actually were born that way~   
 There is conflict when people use the concept and terms incorrectly, (Not necessarily meaning out of context but, rather incorrectly in the sense of in an inaccurate way). 
 

[+ Tygerscent]

On 2/27/2022 at 10:54 AM, xyz48B said:

Sooooo…

Straight folks who live a life of sex, drugs, and rock and rule are living the gay lifestyle? To me, that is misaligned. That’s not the gay lifestyle. Too many straight people live it to be so.

That’s a very good point… It might also clarify some things if you explained what your definition of gay lifestyle, being gay and homosexuality and sexuality are~

[pubic_assistance]

9 minutes ago, Tygerscent said:

I'm sure there’s people out there that use the born this way card in their self defense without ever really knowing they actually were born that way~   

Exactly my point.

Too many people hide behind this weak argument and are afraid to take ownership of their life's choices.

 

[xyz48B]

16 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

Too many people hide behind this weak argument and are afraid to take ownership of their life's choices.

You make it sound like gay people don’t like being gay…”afraid to take ownership”…as if we don’t like being gay. I have no problem accepting a) that I’m gay and b) that I’ve made choices consistent with that. No fear in owning any of that…

You seem to make a lot of presumptions and assumptions about gay folks and then work from that place to say we (gay folks) have some sort of internalized, reifying shame about out sexuality and the choices made around it. Let me categorically, unequivocally say: We don’t.

[pubic_assistance]

4 hours ago, latbear4blk said:

think you may have a reading and comprehension issue.

The last comment would indeed indicate a comprehension issue. Still rattling on about things that haven't been said.

[+ Tygerscent]

I think I’m starting to see an ongoing theme in this thread and it’s something like: self identity vs biological potential. (This is not completely precise but, the words I have for it at the moment).  
 It seems that when self identifying as gay (in respect to sexuality), is important to a person, their responses support the importance of that for them and they lean towards BTW theory~
 When sexually identity is not the main importance of how an individual defines self, (gender identity is different than sexual preference and sexual orientation), the responses are less likely to support “born this way” theory~

  So, maybe it might be helpful to reflect on what’s important to one’s self and evaluate what the various terms one’s self is using to communicate ideas in the topic.
  Sexual identity is different than sexual orientation… and those are different from gender identity and gender orientation… and those are different than biological sexuality and biological gender, (etc.,)… and those are different in the social context than they are in the political and biological context~ It might help to clarify what these things are in our own understandings and Improve upon the accuracy of that understanding before using the words in concept casually in an inaccurate way that might potentiate misunderstanding. 
 It seems that sometimes people are saying similar or the same thing but, there is a condition of semantics that becomes more important than the truth of the topics at hand. 

  
 
 

Edited March 5, 2022 by Tygerscent

[+ José Soplanucas]

3 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

The last comment would indeed indicate a comprehension issue. Still rattling on about things that haven't been said.

You get to a certain point in a conversation where you realize that there is no drive from curiosity and exploration but just need of reaffirmation. 

Then, I give up.

[pubic_assistance]

1 hour ago, latbear4blk said:

You get to a certain point in a conversation where you realize that there is no drive from curiosity and exploration but just need of reaffirmation. 

Then, I give up.

You're a wise man.❤️

[xyz48B]

4 hours ago, Tygerscent said:

That’s a very good point… It might also clarify some things if you explained what your definition of gay lifestyle, being gay and homosexuality and sexuality are~

Being gay.

Having sex with men who also identify as gay.

Potentially living with such a man.

I didn’t realize this was that complicated. Straight people don’t define their “lifestyle” as such – unless they have hangups about sexuality in general. What is the “straight lifestyle?”

People’s lives are so different. And people of particular lifestyle types are very different. I don’t understand why the “gay lifestyle” is one inherently of substances, sex, and partying…I mean, by that token anyone who does those things would have to be gay.

It seems to keep it simple the gay lifestyle is really just finding satisfaction in a sexuality that is exclusively lived out with other men. Maybe my feeble brain just can’t get the concept though. I don’t comprehend it and have cognitive issues.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

...Unfortunately a lot of gay men live in denial of their subconscious decisions made throughout life in who they find attractive . Somehow the "guilt" of homosexuality goes away when you can claim it wasn't your fault ...you were born that way.

 

Sexual attraction, a "decision"?  What an inane notion. My cojones know instantly who I find attractive, and who I don't. If you need to sit around and think about who you find attractive, maybe you might want to have your testosterone levels checked. (I remember having a patient who had trouble deciding to whom he was attracted--as it turned out, he had no testicles due to Klinefelter's Syndrome. We fixed that problem--the low T, not the absence of testicles, of course)

I don't sit around deciding that I find this person attractive:

And this person a real boner-killer:

 

I feel very sorry for anyone who has to sit around "deciding" who he finds attractive. 

 

[+ Tygerscent]

2 hours ago, Unicorn said:

Sexual attraction, a "decision"?  What an inane notion. My cojones know instantly who I find attractive, and who I don't. If you need to sit around and think about who you find attractive, maybe you might want to have your testosterone levels checked. (I remember having a patient who had trouble deciding to whom he was attracted--as it turned out, he had no testicles due to Klinefelter's Syndrome. We fixed that problem--the low T, not the absence of testicles, of course)

I don't sit around deciding that I find this person attractive:

And this person a real boner-killer:

 

I feel very sorry for anyone who has to sit around "deciding" who he finds attractive. 

 

Personally, sexual attraction for me isn’t limited or detailed by age, genitalia, clothing or ethnicity… it’s actually based more on personality and character~ I’ve seen males and females and those who identify as neither or both and found myself attracted to them but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m sexually attracted to them. Sexual attraction for me is more than that outward appearance or genderI’ve seen males and females and those who identify as neither or both and found myself attracted to them but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m sexually attracted to them. Sexual attraction for me is more than that outward appearance or gender. 
 It’s a bit of an assumption asserting that testosterone levels is what determines what gender one is sexually attracted to~
 Are you saying that there is no personal discrimination between who you find attractive and who you don’t~? …that since you enough have adequate testosterone you choose males~? If that were true, it would follow that you are attracted to all males because you have adequate testosterone.  
 I suspect that it is more than testosterone that makes you attracted to males and not all males but, more some than others. Is this true~?

Edited March 5, 2022 by Tygerscent