Poll: The 'why' in Sexuality

[Leodiensian]

I'm gay. Actually, I'm an MSM - that's the medical term, a man who has sex with men either occasionally or solely - since 'gay' is actually a sociological term that refers to a sub-culture I frankly find seedy and surprisingly narrow-minded for a group ostensibly founded on the basis of a common experience of discrimination. You know, like geek culture except with better drinks and worse music.

As to the why, this is something I've read up a bit about since it tends to come up a lot in the inevitable "gays are unnatural" shitstorm that marriage equality threads devolve into and I like to have some links to studies bookmarked, to drop science on the haters like nukes on Hiros(- what, too soon?)

While I can't say I definitely HAVE the answer - I'm not a geneticist, neurobiologist or behavioural psychologist - the evidence I've seen does overwhelmingly support the idea that homosexual behaviour has its roots primarily in our development and biology. I think it has behavioural aspects of course - human sexuality is too complex an asepct ourselves to pigeonhole entirely - but there's been a lot of really interesting work done in studying the genetic, neurological and hormonal aspects of it. Which all leads into the final question about personal experience and attempts to 'change'.

I knew from quite a young age that I was 'different' in a way I really didnt' want to be. I was already a bullied kid at school and when I realised I was attracted to guys, that was a bit hit to me and something I really tried to do something about. I tried straight porn, I tried getting romantically involved with girls, but it was like trying to get a fish to breathe air. It was something I was born with/as, something that I spent years trying to change and failed.

To be perfectly honest, if there was a magical "make me straight" button I could push and redo my entire life with that one change? I probably would. The second playthrough would be much easier and I probably would be happier. The world does not make it easy on gays, especially through adolesence.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

And for all of you religious people out there because I love you and you love me (at least the Christians should) I present this statement.
If God makes everyone and he hates homosexuality, (in the bible it is called an "abomination" punishable by death) why would he make you gay? Oh wait he wouldn't.

No I do not hate Gay people, I just think all sexuality is to do with the mind.

Your understanding of genetics is crude and incorrect.

Cystic fribrosis is a myth.
Consider this if there was a gene for cystic fibrosis, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair ect. However those that get this disease and die young cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes to their offspring.

This is wrong. Its called CARRIERS. Youve used a childish model for genetics that makes zero sense in the real world. People can carry a single allele from parents because parents dont ALWAYS pass on 100% of their genes. They pass on half.

So a gay person can be born from someone with the gay gene who will have straight children and be straight because they CARRY SOME of the information to be gay but not ALL in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. When gametes randomly mix the OTHER parent may have the rest of the information to be gay in a FEW of their sperm/eggs. Thus a gay child has a very slim chance of being created IF these few eggs/sperm meet.

Not all of your sperm/eggs are the same.

I dont know if the gay gene is real or if it is genetic, im just saying for certain your reasoning is 100% wrong. Please dont use "simple" to describe a topic you understand very little about. Presnting these arguements to a geneticist would see you laughed out of the room, these are the very fundamentals of genetics. So dont try and draw conclusions when you lack them.

sufferers of cystic fibrosis would be angered to hear you say "Cystic fribrosis is a myth." BiscuitTrouser.

You are of course talking about carriers who pass on genes that lie dormant and then come out, maybe one or two generations later.

ha ha yeah ok, you realise a gay person would have to have had kids (WHICH THEY CANT DO) in the first place for there to even have been carriers of the gene in the first place.

Say a gay person does have straight sex (which goes against being gay), and they did pas on the gene. It would not last long, the gay offspring would not be interested in spreading the gene they would want gay sex. So it would die out or if it did survive there would be a lot less gays than there are.

But sorry I cant be asked arguing genetics with you I have passed GCSE Biology and that's it, I have no real knowledge. The argument I just gave is one whom my friend who is a biologist, explained to me. (I may have explained it poorly)

So no your carrier argument is invalid.
(I cant be asked taking this conversation any further than this sorry)

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Implying that everyone accepts that humans came from monkeys as fact . And there is no reason why that perticular aspect wouldn't be lost in evolution .

Sorry, should have said primates - monkey being a specific type of primate.

Unless you're saying that we aren't primates. If so... I think I need a little help from Fanrsworth. And it isn't about Good News.

 

[Grogman]

Before reading this thread, I assumed I was bisexual, but I thought I'd look up some definitions to get an accurate answer and found that I fit into the catagory of grey-A.

People who identify as gray-A can include, but are not limited to those who:

do not normally experience sexual attraction, but do experience it sometimes
experience sexual attraction, but a low sex drive
experience sexual attraction and drive, but not strongly enough to want to act on them
people who can enjoy and desire sex, but only under very limited and specific circumstances

(Source [http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gray-A])
I personally am somewhere between the first two points, but grey-A is a very loose term and is just for people who are neither asexual, demisexual or sexual, but somewhere in between. I think a good term for this is sexual-ish, or asexual-ish.

I don't think sexuality is genetic, as our experiences define who we are, which includes sexuality.

Weird, just a couple of months ago I thought I was straight.

EDIT: I think I should give my understanding of the difference between bisexual and pansexual. Bisexual is being attracted to only two genders, whereas pansexual is being attracted to all. The main problem I am seeing in this thread is people not knowing that there are more than two genders, both biological and social. Biological gender being your reproductive gender, such as male or female, and can include genotypes XX, XY, X0, XXX, XXY and quite a few more. Social gender (I think) means the gender you identify as, for example if your biological gender is XX but you identify as a male, your social gender would be male.

Of course, I could be wrong, as some of this is just my thoughts on the matter, although I have read up on this subject quite a bit.

 

[AngloDoom]

The hell if I know. I thought I was straight until I found myself looking at gay porn and enjoying it, and having a casual on/off sexual relationship with a male friend.

I wouldn't even say I'm bisexual, since I only seem to have 'gay-tendencies' on very few occasions and have yet to experience any kind of romantic bond with a male.

For ease, I say I'm heterosexual, but I'd argue sexuality is sometimes more complicated than 'tick one of the above boxes'.

EDIT - Did anyone else read the title in your head as if it should be pronounced 'The wai in sexualitai', or am I just being weird?

 

[verdant monkai]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

So you can criticize my biological comprehension all day, but my argument is by no means fallacious.

Here is a new word for you synecdoche
Noun:
A figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning ?Cleveland's baseball team?).

The assumption you make is the first "mutant" gay person must have been fully gay. Also people totally have kids before they come out as gay because of society (We will KILL you if youre gay), pressure, mental illness or repression of feelings. Not to mention the first person with the "gay gene" may not have expressed it in their pheneotype since their geneotype may have another gene in place to surpress that gene. This is very common in genetics. This means that when they passed on their genetics the repressor gene may not have gone with it and the children may have been gay.

All manor of factors may come into play when we examine the possibility of a gay gene.

 

[Leodiensian]

You are not born gay. Simple

The gay gene is a myth
Consider this if there was a gay gene, it would be passed on by the parents, like blue eyes black hair etc. However homosexuals cannot have kids and therefore cannot pass on any of their genes, to their offspring.

Let us assume there was a gay gene, it would have died out ages ago, because the homosexual would have only had same sex partners. Which would have resulted in no children.
So it is perfectly acceptable to say your sexuality is all in your head.

I get that you're not attacking gay people, and I don't want this to seem like me launching a counter-offensive, but I do disagree with some of your statements. I think you're over-simplifying a pretty complex issue rather drastically. I'm not trying to call you a homophobe or anything like that, but I do think you could do with reading around the topic a bit more before weighing in with such wide sweeping comments as "sexuality is all in your head". Obviously a component of sexual behaviour is cognitive - one can learn and develop preferences through experience - but the behavioural aspects are the tip on a physiological iceberg.

First, you seem to be saying that the only way someone can be "born with" something is to have it be a genetic factor directly inherited, unaltered, from the parents, which is obviously not the case, otherwise evolution simply couldn't happen. Leaving aside the fact that you're wholesale ignoring the concept of genetic mutation, there's a lot of weight to the theory that male homosexuality has to do with fetal developmental variations. For example, a second child is more likely to be gay than a first, and a third etc etc. One cited possibility for this is that subsequent fetuses are exposed to greater quantities of female hormones. Obviously this is just for male same-sex behaviour, but let's move on to another point.

Second, neurochemistry: brain imaging has found that a gay male's brain 'fires' in response to sexual pheromone-based stimuli in a manner that more closely resembles a straight woman's than a straight male. Similary, lesbian brains respond more like straight men than straight women. This is a chemical, physical and unconcious reaction displaying a clear and categorical distinction between different 'sexualities' on a physiological level.

Now, let's move on to more social arguments.

If homosexuality is 'all in your head' and not something you are born with, as you assert, it is therefore a learned behaviour, right? Then the question becomes why would same-sex behaviour still occur in cultures that prescribe heavily against it? Many Middle Eastern states, for example, have the death penalty against male same-sex activities - but funnily enough those gays still keep cropping up. All that the death penalty ensures is that they either resort to extreme subterfuge in order to pursue same-sex activities or have to leave the country in order to live in a way that feels proper to them without the threat of death. Why haven't they been 'scared straight'?

Next, if it is something one is not born with, but 'learned', then the question becomes where does one learn that from? Would a boy in a bubble not be gay in spite of everything else that might otherwise 'make' him gay? Consider the numerous twin studies that founded the idea of a genetic factor to homosexuality; that is, if one twin is gay, the other is statistically overwhelmingly going to be gay as well, no matter the distance the two are apart, nor the amount of time they have been seperate. Do you believe that if we identified two potentially gay twins and isolated one of them, while let the other one go off to become as flaming a ****** as he liked, the boy in the bubble would be a red-blooded heterosexual?

Next, if homosexuality is a purely cognitive aspect of a person, then so-called 'reparative therapy' would work in the same way that one could go to therapy to give up smoking, get over a fear or cope with depression. It doesn't. Even the staunchest of 'ex-gay' advocates have admitted that there has never been a single truly 'cured' homosexual in the history of the ex-gay movement. In fact, reparative therapy is so incredibly psychological destructive that there exists a (pro-gay) "ex-gay survivor" movement campaigning against reparative therapy. I really recommend the writings of Wayne Besen on this topic; Anything But Straight especially clearly documents the failings of the ex-gay movement.

Like I say, I'm not trying to attack you yourself, but I think your arguments speak from a lack of information.

Oh, and one last aside. Your comment on how Ancient Greece used to think homosexuality was okay? Not quite. Again, you're majorly over-simplifying the matter. Several pre-modern societies were (sort of, usually) okay with same-sex activity. Note: not the same thing as exclusive homosexuality. But this was not even something the entirely of Greece could agree on, and even only then with some pretty major caveats attached. First, in those societies the institution of marriage and the practice of childbirth was MUCH MORE IMPORTANT than it is today. Like, getting married while a teen and being explicitly told that the function of such a marriage is to make babies. If your wife doesn't start showing a tummy-bulge within a year of your wedlock, you are a failure of a man. Enjoy! Same-sex activity was in some societies seen as an acceptable form of sex for pleasure - just for pleasure, remember, not as a romantic relationship as we'd concieve of it in modern terms - but mostly due to fucked up pre-modern gender politics where women still weren't entirely seen as human fucking beings, or simply like fucked-up inferior versions of men at best, so of course they could only be used to make more men.

In the few socially acceptable forms of homosexual behaviour, age was also a factor. See, if you're the boss in those societies, you top and if you're the office worker, you're the bottom. That's the only way they consider it acceptable, because the top is the 'manly = superior' position and the bottom is the 'feminine = inferior' position. Again, gender politics back then were kinda fucked, and this was also before the invention of the power bottom. Age was also a factor, leading to the famed Athenian pederasty; an older teacher would be engaged in a same sex relationship with a young, beardless youth - but again, only with the old man on top and the youth on the bottom was this an acceptable relationship. One of the things that the Roman Emperor Nero's contemporaries disliked about him wasn't that he engaged in same-sex activities with his Egyptian stud-slaves (honestly, who doesn't like the odd Egyptian stud-slave?) but because he was on the bottom when he did. The Emperor does not bottom, especially not to a slave. The Emperor should have always been the top in every instance, because he was the utter head of state and therefore should have been head of the bedroom too.

Returning to the central them of this essay of a post: it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

 

[kickyourass]

That's certainly a unique place for this topic to enter your head.
I'm more or less exclusively straight, but I don't have much of a problem admitting that other men are attractive.

I don't really think sexuality has a why, it just kind of is, but then again I know jack all about any human mind other then my own so I can't say anything definitive really.

I don't really think we're born with our sexuality, I don't think anything involving sexuality really starts to develop until much later (Again I know very little about the human mind). But it's certainly not an environmental thing, if it was we wouldn't have gay people come out of Fundamentalist families. I think it's just one of those things the human mind does that we just can't explain yet.

Yes, I have found other men attractive, it's pretty rare, but it happens.

 

[Lord Siathene]

I'm asexual. Sex just isn't that appealing at all, and I don't find it to be all that great either. I only tend to do it because it's such a prevalent part of the relationship experience, or at least it has been in all of mine. I'm sure that's normal? But my "boredom" of the act, for a lack of a better word, sure puts a strain on my relationships. It's sad, but I've come to accept it.

But if I do find myself with anyone, it's always a women. I'm not sure if that fact changes anything, but I can't find the appeal of being with another man at all.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Thought I was straight.
Then started getting some physical (and minor emotional) attractions to guys, thought 'maybe I'm bisexual'.
Still was more sexually attracted to women so I thought 'maybe I am straight'.
Then started thinking 'maybe I'm half straight or something', or 'does it have to be 50/50 to be bisexual'.
Then realised I really don't care and I'll just take it how it goes. Talking about sexuality seems tedious, especially with all these other categories which honestly don't sound that different to the original four. Sexuality's too fluid (lolgetit?) to fit into strict categories and if you try this is what happens.

Will say though- emotionally I'm definitely more attracted to girls, as far as physical features go I'm more attracted to girls, but I prefer the idea of penises to vaginas.
Go make a new category out of that.

 

[elvor0]

Sorry again your biology is wrong. Carriers can lead to other carriers. And who says the emergence of the gay gene took place with a mutation that lead to a full on expression of the gene? A carrier may have been born through mutation and mated with another carrier. Its perfectly possible. Carriers have children with a normal person and 25% of children are carriers.

Youre right you dont know biology. It isnt your fault but the carrier arguement is valid and its not really your field of expertise. I dont mind not getting a reply. The arguement you put forward is fallacious.

If carriers "weaken" the gene then cystic fibrosis can only get better. It doesnt. It doesnt make people "less gay". Carriers spread it and it likely started in carriers if it exists. Which i admit it might not. Im just saying the idea that it CANT exist because gays have children is as invalid as the idea cystic fibrosis (or any other genetic disorder) cannot exist since these people cannot reproduce.

SORRY SORRY your last reply was to interesting to ignore, last one I promise.

I have to thank you for teaching me the word fallacious it's great.
Web definitions:
containing or based on a fallacy; "fallacious reasoning"; "an unsound argument"

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

Aside from the fact that gays can have kids, just because they fancy the same sex, that doesn't make them sterile, not only is there now IVF, but there are plenty of cases of homosexual people getting married and having kids because they're ashamed or closeted, or can't deal with the fact they're homosexual, or they live in a country where homosexuality is illegal, and thus use it as a cover.

And technically in a way it is beneficial, as it keeps the population in check to a certain degree, think about it, we're overpopulated at 7 billion people, imagine if there was no such thing as homosexuality, that's got to increase by like 20%. Granted it's not exactly a physical evolution like opposable thumbs, but you get the idea. Plus, the Appendix, debatably does fuck all, and randomly kills ya.

 

[TehCookie]

I don't fall in any of the terms, where's the one for 90% straight with next to no libido but enjoys romanticism?

 

[Dango]

Whats your sexuality?
Demisexual

Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality?
I do not know.

Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
I believe your sexuality is defined by your life as you grow up

Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Yes.

I don't fall in any of the terms, where's the one for 90% straight with next to no libido but enjoys romanticism?

I'm pretty sure that qualifies as aesexual, as in you aren't sexually attracted, but still romantically attracted to people.

 

[guitarsniper]

I'm bisexual, though I was pretty sure I was straight until a few years back when I started seeing duded and being like "yeah, I'd hit that". So I don't know why, but I guess some switch turned in my brain or something...

 

[Robert Ewing]

Straight male here, I've felt incredibly attracted to men, but never acted upon it because more often then not they were straight, so I suppose I guess that makes me bisexual. Hurray for being greedy!

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

as for the actual argument bit, my point is Gays don't have straight sex in the first place so there would be no carrier offspring. Gays cant have kids (so there cant be any carriers).
If you believe in evolution like I do, then you know all life is a sort of mutation, generally only the beneficial ones are passed on.

I bolded the comments where you are wrong.

Gay people DO have straight sex. Either because they're in the closet, or because they want to have kids.

Gay people DO have kids. They had kids in ancient Greece (because reproduction and sexual satisfaction were considered different things) and they have kids today (sometimes with actual sex, sometimes with artificial insemination.

And I already mentioned the article discussing how bi/homosexuality is a beneficial mutation. Its presence in multiple animal populations, and its duration in the human genome proves that.

 

[Luke3184]

Whats your sexuality? Straight
Do you think there is a Why too your Sexuality? Just the way I'm wired
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality? I think it's just the way you're born
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual? Not sexually attracted, but I can look at another man and go 'damn that's a sexy man'
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual? NA

 

[Blow_Pop]

Whats your sexuality?
Do you think there is a why to your Sexuality?
Are we born this way? or does it just happen? or do are experiences Define our sexuality?
Have you ever been sexual Attracted to a member of the Same sex when you are not Homosexual?
Have you ever been Sexual Attracted to a member of the Opposite Sex when you are Homosexual?

Pansexual
Because I enjoy people's personalities more than their actual gender/appearance. Physical attraction doesn't play much of a factor into how attracted I am. It has to be there in a small part(by this I mean I've dated people that the only thing I found attractive about them is their eyes outside of their personality)but apart from that, WHO someone is is more important to me attraction wise.
You are born liking a certain type of people. Just like gender. And gender is not defined by what genitals you have. Gender is defined by YOU. Your sex is defined by your genitals.
As to the last two questions, I have been attracted to both men and women. In that I have also been attracted to genderqueer individuals and transgender both pre op and post op(I say pre op because some are in the "I want the operation but have not the financial means for it yet" and others are in the "I don't want it" boats).