Were you attracted to penises, or merely to to feminine traits? Seems to have been the latter. Are you still attracted to effeminate men? This seems to be the elephant in the room that few people are willing to address - that orientation isn't about penises and vaginas/breasts so much as it is an attraction to typically masculine or typically feminine traits. That can include body types, the amount and distribution of body hair, voice pitch, etc. etc. etc.
As far as I can recall the face was the only thing I cared about at that stage. The first girl that didn't run away and cry when I showed interest was not feminine in her manner. She wore sneakers and jeans to school. It had just become permissible and was not yet common. She made me show my affection by doing good deeds, with the reward of being allowed to kiss her sneaker, then slowly work my way up. She broke up with me when I got to her kneecap. My family supported our relationship, so I got to visit her at her home a few times. One time I found myself playing a stripping game with her and three other girls. I might have learned something that day, but I got interrupted just as it was getting interesting. I left out the end of my other post. At age 10, after years of begging I was permitted to watch the tv show Dark Shadows. Soon they announced it was going to be cancelled. In the last few minutes of the final episode they killed my favorite character, who happened to be a handsome man. After the show ended I started crying (a very rare event in my childhood). Soon my mother said, "Poor ________, so handsome." It struck me at that moment that she was right. I liked him because he was handsome and a boy should not feel that way. I stopped crying immediately and haven't been attracted to a male since. Like many people my age, I learned what a homosexual was in 1974 by watching a made-for-tv movie. I recently found out the name of the movie: That Certain Summer. Hal Holbrook, who is now my favorite living actor, explained to his teenage son why he left Hope Lange for Martin Sheen. (Sheen was cuter in those days.)
Do you suppose you are either homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual, or does it depend purely on your socialization?
All this proves is your lack of exposure with females and more exposure to males, effectively distorting your sexual orientation. It happens in homes avcross America. Which is why I'm against Gays adopting kids. the potential to distort sexual orientation is too great.
The reason I told the story is to consider a few possible scenarios. Suppose between the age of 5 and 8 I had kissed a boy and he reacted favorably. We would have become a gay couple even though we were in a presexual state. That was the 1960s. No doubt someone would have persuaded us not to proceed, but what would the enlightened parents of today do? Next consider my attraction to the handsome actor at age 10. A parent easily might decide she should do nothing but further encourage that inclination and raise the boy as gay from that point on. Many children have sex long before they're ready. Some end up scarred for life, but some presumably like it and proceed with whichever orientation hit them first. Also, if a person's first experience seems to be the right kind at the right time but is unsatisfactory, he could easily find himself embraced by the other camp.
Do you suppose every boy has the same potential to be attracted to the handsome actor, or would such a scenario never even occur with many or most boys? If you're asking whether I agree with the possibility that social pressures can influence how you think and act sexually, I absolutely do. Sexuality is not divided into mutually exclusive dicholomies, and my understanding is that social pressures can strongly influence how much you experiment with or even acknowledge attractions to different genders. The question is not if social pressures influence those who have a tendancy to be attracted to both genders, but rather if it is purely social with no predispositions. Would you expect a higher rate of homosexuality in countries that have greater social acceptance for it? If it's just social, you might imagine such a statistic being easily observable. There's another way to think about this. Presumably, if social pressures are causing you to select one orientation over another, then it's this person that's being forced to settle with what may o may not be the "right" orientation. If the person is no being pressured into one camp or the other, he's less likely to identify into either of them and instead be open to both. In other words it's not just a matter of settling into whatever orientation hits you first unless you're pressured into it. You often see this with children raised by gay couples, where they are more likely to experiment, less likely to identify with one camp or the other, but tend to settle with hetero/homosexuality at the same rate as other children. There's nothing that says you can't experiment with both orientations regardless of what your first on was. The only question is if you can force an attraction that was not there to begin with.
I am against that as well,,,well at east so far anyway,,I'm the open minded type. I just do not think it's fair to the child, why should they be in a situation that may cause them grief and confusion from the start,,,why? It just seems selfish to me. A child has it hard enough being adopted and knowing it's parents left them,,,why add that? When an adoption agency is determining if a couple should get a child or not, do they not look at the financial security of the new parents to be?,,,why? It's because they want to make sure that child has a good, or at least equal start compared to other children. Are they afraid the child might starve? Nope, they just want that child to have the best chance possible, same thing should be considered in a gay couple situation. I could be wrong, don't think so though. I have nothing against Gays, but I am glad my parents were a man and a woman. Life and especially growing up is tough, why add to it?
That's precisely the fear that I have. Many sources tell young people not to smoke, yet many try it and nearly as many continue to smoke as before the surgeon general's warning. Using drugs is both unhealthy and criminal, yet it only takes an introductory experience and a happy user you like to get you started on a life of addiction. When I was a small child I saw a pizza and was repulsed. It looked and smelled like throw up. At age 35 I had eaten pizza exactly five times, with the third time the best. At age 36 my employer shut down and ordered pizza for our last night on the job. Since there was nothing else available I ate some vegetarian pizza. It was like a salad with warm cheese and I liked it. Guess what I'm having for supper tonight. In any case, if a child is taught that homosexuality is as valid as any other option he will have no hesitation about trying it and his future activity will likely be based on the early results rather than any biological inclination. I guess I think like Abraham Lincoln did about slavery. I can tolerate where it exists but don't want it intruding into new territories.
Like mentioned, the evidence to date shows children raised by homosexuals (and thus presumably taught that homosexuality is OK) do indeed have less hesitation on experimenting, but that they ultimately settle down at the same rate of homosexuality/heterosexuality as those raised by heterosexuals. There's no indication in countries that are decades ahead in terms of gay rights that homosexuality is more prominent. You seem to be equating it to smoking, which is a known, physically and psychologically addictive and dangerous substance. I see no paralel with homosexuality, as it is not inherently dangerous, stigmatizing it actually makes it more dangerous, and unlike an addictive substance like nicotine, the experimenting with sexuality and acceptance of homosexuality has not lead to increased rates of homosexuality itself.
Interesting that you say this. Two childhood friends. One ended up gay and the other married but with more dresses than his wife. The first one had a very intrusive mother and a father that died when he was 8. He didn't come out until his mother, a very religious woman. died. The second had a very paranoid and controlling mother. His paternal father ran off with a married woman and his mother married the man that was married to the other woman. Can you say screwed up?
Nice to see your comment goes along the lines of 'i dont know but i imagine its really strange.' Sexuality is quite a fluid concept. Society plays its part, this is certainly true, but most sexual tendencies appear generally part of one's predetermined genetic qualities. That being said sexual preferences can change as one grows, and there are a number of diseases where people's bodies can in fact change physically as well as psychologically as sexual desires develop or are altered over time.
I've read that sexual orientation is amazingly similar to handedness. Both start to show up around the age of 2. The distribution (about 9-1) in the population is about the same. Males are more likely to be homosexual AND more likely to be left handed than females. Neither seems to be either heriditary (gay parents don't have any higher incidence of gay children than straight parents) or environmental (those raised in gay communities are no more likely to be gay than those in any other community). So if it ain't nature (genetic) and ain't nurture (environmental), why do we even see this range of orientations? (And no, there's no correlation between sexual orientation and handedness). In fact, as far as I've been able to find, sexual orientation doesn't seem to correlate with much of anything - not with ethnic background, with nationality, with climate, with language or religion, with prenatal conditions or experiences in infancy, etc. So far, there seems to be a very slightly higher incidence of non-heterosexual orientation with each additional child born to a single woman. If this proves statistically significant, it would indicate perhaps some differences in the early development of the embryo. Stay tuned on that one. But the fact remains that if somehow every non-heterosexual person were to vanish overnight, within 2 generations there would be as many as ever, evenly distributed as ever across all cultures and nations on the planet. It's just part of the overall human condition.
the universally accepted "correct" answer of "I was born gay" is the unspoken politically correct way for all gays from answering in a way that disqualifies them from accepting benefits (like marraige tax breaks and reduced cost health insurance) they normally weren't qualified for.
A better question might be: if you got oral sex from a gay and enjoyed it, but still love busty blonde ina bikini, are you gay? or just like fun of sex?
What makes people gay is that fact that they are attracted to the same sex. Someone can perform a gay act without actually being gay.
Homo or not, caused by hormone, wiki says http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
LOL Wiki doesnt say that at all. You linked a theory, which itself states the causes are unknown - homosexuality could arise from a combination of things. Regardless, whether homosexuality is natural or not (whatever that word means) has nothing to do with its morality.
nah obama will lose democrat TV and **** sites like reddit claim blah blah with thier (*)(*)(*)(*)ty skewed polls but americans know obama added 9T to 17T debt and that the unemployment rate is 17% despite fed running wild and already caliming 2T more so 11T from obama debt and rest of us history 8T wow holy (*)(*)(*)(*) obama basically did 11 iraq wars and everyone poorer cuz all money going to israel foiegn banks and pals of obama who start and scutel things liek solyandra with green sounding goals that are never attained lol remember repbulicans and capitalism make you richer not unions and hadnouts if your paycheckl went from 40% tax to 5% you would have cash of 95 not 55 in addition all goods would go DOWN in price as printing moeny and high production union costs go down adn all the welfare jobs liek public school go away and since not paying that dont need higher taxes to balance the budget and still have surpluses done remember clinton had huge 80s pwoered invention of free new market called the NET invented due to 80s expansion of tek during hsi time, he was luck ape that sall and a moron throughand through
