There you have it… although developmentally he’s probably closer to a 4 year old boy still processing 
deranged family dynamics stuck inside a 12 year old who can’t relate to anyone stuck inside a 15 year old in a weirdo social system that ultimately found himself stuffed into a 30 year old sausage skin… totally addicted to his bullshit and no perspective outside of himself… been around a few of these myself… you get the drill pretty fast… don’t waste another second thinking you’ll get through to a mind like this… because you won’t… because, basically, he’s in love with himself…
Oh hun…
That’s not strategic, if mistaken, negging.
That’s a guy who feels good when he can put other people down.
To use a Brit saying: ‘You are well shut of him love.’
Hugs
May
homosexuality is biological.
the ONLY ones that think its NOT are the ones that have given thought to the gender they are not attracted to and decided “not for me”. easy to do if your straight.
when a gay person tells me it was their choice to be gay and they have NOT changed their religious view, I will open my mind to people choosing to be rediculed and tormented for their choice.
kind of makes ya think about those choosing to be gay, eh?
sore subject for me 
I vote a stupid clown who thinks he’s being clever…
Ahaha, well, I guess this a topic that I’ll choose to agree to disagree. We’ve already been down this path before, but you do make a valid point. I’ve opened my mind a lot since our last discussion, and maybe one day I’ll be convinced that there is a biological role in orientation. I have accepted the fact that if anything, it is an immovable state of mind that may or may not be cureable… at this point, I’d have to say that it isn’t necessarily a conscious choice, but a vast array of factors, including some physiological that determine attraction. I do not think it is something you’re born with, per se, rather a biological “flaw” (please don’t bite my head off for that one) in development.
Speaking of which, anybody hear of asexuality? That is an interesting sub-category in the orientation department. Happiness is all that matters, so if you are held back by society due to a few conservative no-no’s, then I say screw them. It’s your life, and if you do well unto others, then there’s no reason why I should condemn you for it. In religious terms, we don’t even have the privilege to judge anybody, including ourselves, so there’s no reason at all to promote the fiery flames to all of those who have different sexual preferences (as long as it is consensual, of course). Anyways, in short, that’s my hijacked perspective on immaturity, ignorance, homosexuality, and religious bias.
Hmm I grew up in a big Assembly of God–Pentecostal Christian Church. And while premartial sex was officially discouraged, it was pretty much anything goes as long as you confessed your sins later. People were extremely affectionate to say the least. I got laid more by attending the singles fellowship than I could shake a stick at–blew away singles bars and the usual pickup joints. The women, especially the young divorces, were aggressive and hot to trot. At each service there was a call to sexual sin and half the congregation always ended up in the front praying. I eventually quit because most of the women pressured you to get married and I just wanted to have fun.
Maybe he’s Bipolar? lol. I’ve known a few who would slip in-and-out of their manic episodes. Could be as his behavior sounds pretty unpredictable… does he have mood swings? appear to be depressive, self absorbed, and randomly get excited all within a short time span?
Ahahaha, I don’t doubt it, but I also grew up in a born-again bible thumping non-denominational pentecostal church, and there are a lot of devout Christians who are rather apprehensive about their sexuality. It really depends on how serious you take it as an individual, because there are a lot of people who attend church soley for the social gathering. Jesus Camp is a perfect example of indoctrination that has resulted in kids literally fearing that dancing to britney spears is considered a carnal act for the world. If someone wishes to pursue a religion, specifically Christianity, I believe they should take it upon themselves to learn it through self education, rather than listening to the same dogmatic irrelevant preachings given in the pulpit every Sunday morning. I’ve personally tried a lot of different spiritual paths, including atheism (non-spiritual), but decided that my fulfillment is in with what I was raised to believe. Personal experience has reinforced my beliefs, but that’s all I’m accountable for. I sin as everybody does, and by no means do I ever think I’m self rigtheous, because it is in that fatal flaw that you need to re-examine your intentions for pursuing a spiritual path. That’s just where I come from, and how I live, and it makes me happy.
I’m not talking about gaydar. I’m talking about a guy who has a period of going out with girls (and sometimes even getting married and having children) and then later comes out and reveals that he was feeling attracted to men (and not much to women) for many years prior, even when he was trying to be straight. One of these guys was my friend in high school, one was my boss, and several I’ve known as an adult.
oddly enough Carrie, I know of two people that have admitted to this senario.
im guessing its more prevalent than we think.
i imagine its alot like straight people pretending to be gay, if it were the accepted way to be, and I have to say Im impressed with the courage it took to try to be like everyone else when it simply isnt what they are.
Yes, that is helpful. It is natural for us to be interested in people who are interested in us. I don’t see curiosity about someone who expressed interest as morbid. I hope you don’t allow this interaction to do too much harm to your good nature.
You’re on a good crusade. Unfortunately some people misinterpret the technique, with hurtful results.
Maybe it’s not a misinterpretation, it’s just their definition of negging. Perhaps even being downright mean gets results of a kind also.
Regardless of the word definitions, I think we probably agree if someone leaves the interaction with a smile it’s better than if they leave with tears brimming up in their eyes.
gay vs. homosexual, gaydar, biological vs developmental
At the risk of offending everyone, I’m going to make a distinction between “being gay” and “having a predominantly homosexual orientation.”
There are plenty of homosexual men who don’t look, act, feel, etc. or otherwise advertise being “gay” in any way. And I don’t mean that they are stereotypically-in-the-closet, macho, “look at those titties” pretenders. You might wonder why they’re not married, or why they were divorced, but they don’t spontaneously offer behavioral clues that they are attracted to other men.
When people talk about having gaydar, what they are saying is they’ve acquired the ability to identify and recognize certain (more or less transient) patterns of behavior that fit experiential models of homosexual orientation. Like radar, it only tells you that “there might be something of interest here” but doesn’t define that something.
If I hear someone use the phrase “He’s made a choice to be gay” I don’t think “Oh, he’s decided to reject heterosexuality” I think, “Oh, he’s decided to reject ‘straightness’ and to advertise his ‘gayness’.” How? It could be connecting with his feminine side when he walks or gestures, being articulate in his interest in opera or show tunes, or just being willing to talk about his boyfriend when ‘the girls’ at work mention theirs. It could be asking his co-workers to sponsor him in the Aids Walk, etc. etc. etc.
One final thought. For most people, their sexuality is written in stone. Hetero- or homo-, for most folks their orientation is pretty stable and unchanging.
But for some, sexual attraction is more variable; unless you’re willing to rule out the possibility of bisexuality completely, you realize that some bisexuals also have a relatively stable level of interest (not necessarily equal) in both sexes, while other bisexuals may be more or less attracted to one sex or the other at various points in their lives. (I don’t think this is cause for hope among the ‘cure homosexuality’ crowd, primarily because no one can figure out what triggers such changes in relative interest.)
As far as the biological versus developmental argument goes, here’s my take:
- Sexual orientation is ~determined~ by hormone levels in utero at various points in the gestation cycle. Genetics’ only influence is in how much effect the hormones have at any given level – the hormonal patterns dominate the genes, not vice versa.
- The orientation ~wiring~ is set before birth, but the developmental experiences from birth to puberty create a context. The androgen release during puberty triggers the otherwise dormant brain patterns. How they are expressed is influenced by the individual context.
Which means, basically, that no amount of athletics and team sports (e.g., little league baseball) or other “upbringing” will stop Tommy from “feeling special” when looking at Billy’s strong, muscular back, if that’s what the in utero hormones built so many years ago. Tommy might have been taught to hate himself for feeling that way, but that’s a different matter.
There are a handful of exceptions to this, but they really are exceptions: heterosexuals sent to reform school or prison, etc…
MarkL, great response as usual. I always had one question though.
If genetics has anything to do with homosexuality, then lets say sometime in the future if homosexuality becomes more easily accepted in the society so that homosexuals stop having heterosexual relations and therefore stop procreating and stop passing their genes does the homosexuality trait run the risk of disappearance or “extinction”?
I agree with many of your points but musical taste as a gay indicator is over the top. I’ve worked in musical theater and opera productions for years and find both the musicians and audience to be representative of the general population as far as sexual orientation. Interest in the fine and performing arts is more a matter of culture, education and upbringing, not sexual orientation. But, alas, your view is a common stereotype.
Always a great question, man. I’m going to answer in terms of male homosexuality, not to offend lesbians, but because I just do not know whether or not the same analysis applies.
As far as I can see, the whole system of human procreation is designed to maximize variation. If you consider that not all species procreate sexually, you get the first clue: the female genetic pattern is the default, every male is a variation. In essence, all males are deviants. Combining male and female patterns in binary sexual reproduction produces lots of unique differences – much more so than your basic amoeba that just puts out copies of itself.
Now, variation itself means we take a look at the old “bell curve” as an example. Some genetic variants are physically “terminal” from a reproductive perspective: micro-encephalitis for example, is fatal. (Anything that tends to the non-reproductive is genetically fatal.) Over time, the gene pool weeds out fatal combinations, making them more and more recessive. Like one-in-a-million or one-in-a-hundred-thousand combinations. They go further and further out into the “tail” of the bell curve, waaay out where the probability is really, really tiny.
But homosexuality, apparently, has been fairly stable as a population component, AFAIK, between 4% and 10% depending on your definitions and what you consider to be culturally reliable evidence as you go back in time. (The term homosexuality wasn’t even invented until a couple of centuries ago, mostly because it wasn’t an issue. So that does cloud things.)
Now, here’s the step in the argument that’s always been difficult for me to grasp, but I can still go with it.
-
IF genetics determines homosexuality, THEN with centuries of “reproductive disadvantage” – even a small percentage of homosexual males, for example, in each generation who don’t reproduce – there would be a marked, unmistakable effect. If we start with, perhaps, ten percent homosexuals, and one-half of all homosexuals reproduced (and one-half did not) then (if homosexuality was primarily genetic) it would also be close to extinct by now. (I.e, it would be about as common as being born with both male and female genitals, or with arms missing.)
We know that homosexuality is not virtually extinct. So it seems as if that proves that genetics does ~not~ determine homosexuality. However, there are two possible exceptions (in terms of assumptions) to the model above that would also work in terms of gene pool evolution and the apparently stable percentage of homosexuality over time: -
If homosexuality started out as the dominant genetic pattern for the great majority of males, and then some socio-evolutionary step changed that pattern (the eruption of Mt. Toba, for example, about 78,000 years ago) we could still be in a slow “downslope” of the genetic pool, but at any time, the curve could turn down drastically, OR
-
If virtually all men today are secretly homosexual, and they are still reproducing to escape from (and in defiance of) their genetics.
Both of these seem highly doubtful to me. So … genetics ~might~, for example, influence how much estrogen is required at point A in gestation to wind up with a homosexual orientation, but not whether or not enough estrogen can have an effect.
Apparently, stress during pregnancy increases the hormones that tend to trigger homosexual development. From the species perspective, that’s a survival trait: in time of famine, or war, pregnant females producing males that don’t want to settle down and start a family means those single males will be available to fight wars, or to help feed those who do create families.
All right, to answer your hypothetical question, although I don’t think it actually applies in reality – if every male who carries a “tending to homosexuality” gene does not reproduce, then it will immediately result in an effect on subsequent numbers of homosexual offspring. The stronger the hypothetical genetic influence, the bigger the consequence of not reproducing.
Yes, if homosexuality is completely determined by genetics (and not at all by in utero hormones) then widespread social acceptance and a 100% “coming out” and lack of reproduction would make homosexuality extinct in one generation.
Cheers!
Heh … the whole point is that someone, with knowledge of the stereotype, uses the cliche as the means for putting a “blip” on someone else’s “gaydar.”
I’m in total agreement that musical taste tells nothing about whether someone is homosexual in orientation. But – if a homosexual male, knowing the cliches, says to another male “I love Madonna’s last album”, it is the stereotype itself that is being exploited to communicate.
Knowing that there is no bar to a heterosexual male appreciating Madonna’s works, the “sender” can add one cliche after another to his “performance” – in tone of voice “I just loove Madonna’s last album” – with a postural note that includes a cocked wrist, etc…
None of these stereotypical performances in and of themselves determine sexuality, nor vice versa.
Remember that small wooden watercraft put “metal signal reflectors” on the bow and stern to be visible to the radar of larger boats.
No difference.
You always present valid points.
I agree with parts of your bolded areas near the top, except I wanted to point out that guys who are effeminate are not always homosexual, and in fact, I think more often than not, they are heterosexual or bisexual.
Gaydar is nothing more than an innate curiosity that connects past experiences and/or acquired knowledge about homosexuality, and tries to rationalize by placing these generalizations into a present-day observation.
There is only one way to know about anothers orientation, and it is simply by asking them if they feel attracted to the same sex, which in my opinion really isn’t anybodys buisness to begin with.
Lately I’ve talked to some women who say they have been traumatised after the guy they were going (about) to marry ended up cheating them with another guy…
then they seem to lose trust in other men somehow after the experience
MarkL, thanks for your well fleshed out answer. I was wondering if there have any studies about the existence of homosexuality in non-human animals, or maybe even just our close cousins like gorilla, chimpanzee etc.
How would that influence the genetics vs. in-utero hormones theory?
i think its pretty acceptable to think she would lose trust in men after they cheat with any gender if she is going to have trust issues anyway.
all the difference in gender would add is that she now feels threatened by more than one gender in a relationship.