Gay Teen Suicide: A Range of Causes

Yes, s/he does bob and weave quite a bit eh? That's called a distraction in my book. There's something emerging in this debate that 808 seems very keen to turn the trained eye away from by rambling.

But indulging one of those tangents by another poster, let's discuss "gay animals".

Dixon was quick to point out how male dogs have the urge to mount and hump. How another male dog, female dog, couch, person's leg and so forth will suffice.

I can tell you from decades of experience that this is true with male animals. And in the AI field they rely on it to train any orientation they like in their stud animals to facilitate easy collection of semen to store and ship to breed females all around the globe from select and superior stud animals. They take the male's urge to mount and hump and graft it onto whatever object or other farm animal that allows for the best safety for the animal and his handlers. In the case of bulls, they are trained to be "gay" because collecting off them while they mount steers saves wear and tear on valuable cows. So once trained, a bull then becomes sexually aroused at the sights, sounds and smells of other [castrated] males.

In the case of wild animals it's nature doing the training, in the form of frustration or aversive conditioning. In the wild usually, dominant males control the females and all breeding rights. Yet subordinate males are not less horny. So there they are, on the threshold of puberty, denied access to females and if they try, they are pummelled, often within inches of their lives by the dominant male. If after 10 tries of mounting a female and 10 sound thrashings by the dominant male, oozing wounds and pain associated with "wanting female" is the perfect cocktail for aversive conditioning to "avoid female". Still, in the bachelor herd this male's libido is no less abated and he wants to hump and mount. So he tries out a few of his buddies and when he succeeds in achieving orgasm two or three times with them, without getting pummeled, he associates the sights, sounds and smells of "male" with "reward' for humping.

In fact I've seen a version of this on my own farm. I had a group of billy goats in together to control the breedings of the does I had. I'd bought an expensive buck goat with a great libido and was waiting for the right time of year to breed him so the kids wouldn't be born in bad weather. Thing is though the females started cycling months before I planned to breed. So the poor billy goats would stand at the fence bellowing for the girls who were standing nearby behind another fence all "ready to go" with phermones wafting by the boys, driving them nuts with frustration.

At first the prime buck I got stood closest to the females and used his horns severely to knock back any opponents that came closer to the females than he. Males in herds mount not just for sexual gratification but they will mount other males as a display of dominance and aggression. So in the course of heightented sexual frustration and boughts for dominance at the fenceline closest to the females they couldn't get to, they began to mount each other in a mix of dominance struggle and in stimulation to the phermones from across the fences.

One buck who was dominant, the expensive one, became the "top" boy and paired orgasm with "male" often enough that when I took him to breed the females eventually, he was less than enthusiastic and instead would stand near the fence bellowing for his mates in the bachelor pen. It was a disaster. How I cured him of it was I left him in the pen with the does without contact of other males. Eventually he became so frustrated with not being able to get to his boy buddies, that he began to mount the does and ejaculate with them. I did get several kids by him the next year, but after the first initial training he still associated "male" with "sexual reward" because of his first important sexual graftings.

So I had made a "bisexual" goat by accident. He eventually went back to dominating the other male goats by horn-battling them. Only occasionally would he mock-mount them again. I think I got him early enough to regraft him back to females. I hadn't really been aggressive about aversive conditioning. I simply used reverse-frustration to correct the original frustration.

I imagine a group of adolescent boys, surrounded by female pheremones that are always present in the environment, horny as hell and possessed with the urge to hump and mount would feel simliarly. If girls were hard to access or they experienced negative associations or even physical or psychological punishments in association with "girls", they might find themselves doing what my goat did. And with humans, reward and punishments are so much more subtle than with lower mammals. The "horn in the side" could merely be a snide comment from a girl at a vulnerable moment. Or it could be a sound beating by a boy-rival in association with "wanting girl". Maybe a boy grew up in an environment with a dominant female who was abusive? Or maybe he was accessed by another male and tampered with sexually to associate "orgasm" with "other boy".

Conditioning is conditioning. We need to understand how conditioning affects human sexuality before we blindly declare that it "has nothing whatsoever to do with it!!" [then, diversion, diversion, diversion..]

 

"Plastic sexuality". We see it in prisons around the world.

 

Close friend of mine, Heterosexual, married with kids since he was 20. Got a divorce and dated for a while as a overweight, balding, middleaged heterosexual and says he went for a year and a half without sex. A chance encounter with another gay man, he now identifies as a homosexual and says he gets laid all the time. He says, "imagine dating women that all have the same sexual drive as men, you get laid all the time."
He is what the gays call a "top". The thought of being penetrated by another man isnt something he has any interest in whatsoever. I have a harder time understanding males who have no interest in penetrating other people and only long to be penetrated by other men. Like I said in another thread, I wouldnt disagree that some men may fail to develope in the womb a normal sexuality that compels those with a penis to stick it in or rub up against almost anything. Leaving them with the only option of being penetrated by another man if they want to experience sexual intimacy with another human. Especially in the case of what appears to be very feminine gay men. Seem to walk different and talk different. Dont have any of that typically male aggresiveness or physique. And that is exactly the type of woman my friend above is attracted to. We know each other from kite surfing so we are usually in our swimsuits so I usually get to see more of his differnt boyfriends he brings along than I care to. The younger the better, 30 inch waists or less, not a hair on their body other than their head or possibly under their swimsuit. They walk feminine they talk feminine, they lay out and work on their tans with the girls, my friend dominates each one of them and they seem to eagerly submit. I have a hard time denying that these males may have been born different than the ordinary sexual male. But my friend, former college football player, big macho guy, arrogant, aggressive, I think he was born just like me, horny.

 

You're taking it out of context. Do the research. The Evelyn Hooker study was seeking to find out whether or not homosexuality, itself, was a pathology. Homosexuals having a higher rate of depression that does not mean that homosexuality is a pathology if that's what you're trying to argue. They were not testing to see if homosexuals had a higher rate of depression, but if there were any underlying issues that would suggest that homosexuality, itself, was a pathology.

Now, I agree (as I point out the other post), the APA wording in the article is strange: "Based on these findings, Dr. Hooker tentatively suggested that homosexuals were as psychologically normal as heterosexuals." The study suggests that homosexuals are inherently as psychologically normal as heterosexuals, the APA should have clarified (despite clarifying in other points in the article).

 

I adress every single one of your points, and then you ignore them. Who is bobbing and weaving?

If I am wrong about something, I will be more than happy to admit it (as I already have at least once in this thread). I don't have any sort of an ego attached to this or any other discussion.

Any reading on this, Silhoutte?

Again, I don't think human sexuality is is that comparable to the sexuality of an animal. I think it should go without saying that we're a tad more evolved, and therefore a tad more complex. I'll just repeat my argument again:

Nope. It's very simplistic to bring it all down to sexual arousal, while it is a very large component of most romantic relationships, I would argue that there are many feelings that come up when you are attracted to someone in a more than a friend kind of way that are romantic but not sexual. I think there's just more to it than that, the butterflies in the stomach, the not being able to take your eyes of the person, wanting to be around them, be close with them, etc. are all romantic feelings that while often coincide with sexual feelings in most people, aren't inherently sexual themselves. There's a very large emotional component as well. If homosexuality were merely a fetish, then it would simply be about just sexual arousal for people, but it's not. So, I don't believe it's comparable to someone having a foot fetish or a latex fetish or whatever.

I'll invite Dixon to share his thoughts as well.

 

And imagine that same scenario in a world, 50 years from now, after these post pubescent boys have been taught since kindergarten of the option of homosexual sex as a perfectly moral, healthy and equal option without the hazards of unplanned pregnancies and I suspect there will be a whole lot of humping going on.

Remember the Sambia tribe? ALL men desire to stick their dicks into young boys mouths because theyve been taught since they were 8 years old that sex with boys is a perfectly moral, healthy and equal option without the hazards of unplanned pregnancies.

"NATURAL" human sexuality, absent social, religious, moral and legal influences, is probably like bonnobo chimps where sex is frequent, with many different partners of both sexes, and providing and caring of offspring is purely the domain of women.

Liberals are all about if it feels good, then do it when it comes to sex. I am to but we are talking about society here not me personally. Call me old fashioned but I dont mind government using the purely voluntary institution of marriage to channel heterosexuals desires that are certain to lead to procreation, into responsible procreation within the nuclear family, and less procreation to single mothers that leads to more poverty, troubled kids, higher HS drop out rates, juvenile delinquincies AND MORE unplanned pregnancies to single teen mothers.

And of course, NONE of this legitimate governmental purpose is in ANY WAY served by marriage for platonic couples, related couples or same sex couples. Im sure male bonnobos have no mental hangups as they bone one of their other male buddies, leading to distress or higher suicide rates, but I dont think thats justification for trying to emmulate bonnobo society where homosexual behavior is common.

I suspect morbidly obese people have more mental problems and suicide rates but that doesnt mean we need to shower the morbidly obese people with tax breaks and governmental entitlements to they can feel better about their morbid obesity.

 

You generalize so much.

Do you think that you have any 'real' solutions for this society?

 

What society? Is being vague another attempted diversion?

 

When 'I' mention society, I'm mostly pointing to "America". Even that encompasses a lot, but many can relate to the what we experience here, to some reasonable degree.

Also, I enjoy it when people from other nations share what they have experienced or learned about homosexuality overall.

 

Conditioning works in the US, in Bangladesh, and in Israel, The Congo and Tasmania. It's a universal animal-thing. Basically if you have a nervous system, you are subject to the tyranny of classical conditioning, regardless of what you "learned or experienced" about it.

The point is that you understand this behavioral fact thoroughly and then go forward to understand sexual orientation and then finally talk about mainstreaming deviant orientations in a culture through vehicles like marriage and elementary school curriculums, and not the reverse progression. Gays want people to normalize homosexuality first and maybe understand it later if they have the time. And there's a reason why they want this. And it has to do with gay teen suicide. It's a riddle. Solve it if you dare.

 

"solutions for this society"?? You mean for "Gay teen suicide"? Probably the same solution as for most all other teen suicides. Heterosexual teen suicides is such a more prevalent problem and I suspect any solutions for heterosexual teen suicide would also work just fine for "gay teen suicides". Homosexuals need to get over their "gay"ness. If a college girl were to commit suicide because her college dorm roomate secretly video taped her having sex with her boyfriend and posted it on youtube, we dont clamour for solutions to heterosexual teen suicide. Why must we provide them when its a college boy doing the same thing? What are the solution you would suggest for "gay" HIV, "gay" drug and alchohol abuse, "gay" domestic abuse, "gay" psychological stress or "gay" promiscuity and "gay" unprotected sex. Yeah, all these things have a higher prevalence among the gays, but that doesnt mean the problem needs a different solution from heterosexuals, because it is homosexual involved. Do we need "gay" housing codes to deal with the problem of shoddy "gay" building practices? What the (*)(*)(*)(*) else do you people need from the rest of society? I just know gay affirmative action will be next. Special exceptions for "gay" firefighter candidates because we dont have the appropriate # of gay firefighters to suit your liking. Sheesh!

 

What dont you understand. Hooker found no difference in pathology between homosexuals and heterosexuals. 50 years later they sought to EXPLAIN the differences in pathology between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Sought to expalin the "higher risk for stress-sensitive psychiatric disorders" among homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals. " psychiatric disorders" are a "pathology".

 

Well certainly a start for a solution to gay teen suicide would be to allow them reparative therapy if they wish it, alongside therapy addressing early tampering episodes if they are gay by coercion [molestation].

Denying therapeutic techniques that the client wants badly for themself is antithetical to sovling gay teen suicide. Saying that instead they should receive therapy to make them feel better about being gay would be the same as denying a teen girl who was molested in childhood, therapy for being promiscuous, saying that instead she should "learn to embrace her sluttiness".

Who in their right mind would stonewall a therapeutic technique that seeks to undo the damage that was done? And yes, if homosexuality was artificially foisted on you, that is damage and not natural.

 

You can't possibly argue with me about this if you haven't actually read the study. This is what the Evelyn Hooker study says: "A question also arises about the size of the sample used. It is possible that much larger samples - for example, 100 in each group - would show differences. But would we not, in this case, be dealing with a different question, namely, "How many homosexuals, as compared with heterosexuals, are average or better in adjustment, and how many are worse than average?" It seems to me that for the present investigation the question is whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology. All we need is a single case in which the answer is negative."

As you can see, unlike the second link I posted, the Evelyn Hooker study was not looking to compare the levels of adjustment between homosexuals and heterosexuals and acknowledged that if they had used a larger sample size that the differences could have been greater. The actual purpose of the study was to see if there was an inherent connection between homosexuality and pathology.

 

"Sheesh"... you're incessantly sensationalizing things you shouldn't.

 

Because in the first study they didnt find ANY differences in pathology. 50 years later they accept the differences in pathology as a given and attempt to blame the cause of the HIGHER rates of pathology upon the discrimination homosexuals experience. Like I said.

 

Question:

Is ANYONE here trying to imply/say, that simply BEING 'homosexual' causes one to be suicidal?

Or... Is anyone trying to merely seeking discuss factors which likely contribute to suicides in homosexual people?

I know that those who are afraid of losing here, want to cite what they believe to be credible sources (and/or credible interpretation of said data)... but I want to know what people actually 'think' or 'believe'.

What some of you are saying isn't 'clear' at this point. I mean, the data is interesting, but many sources quoted, don't necessarily make the person's position on this matter very clear.

 

I agree. But then again you could just use your old noggin' to figure out the answer to your "who cares and who doesn't" question. After all, that's ultimately the position you want to ferret out, isn't it Johnny? Or is it a position that would help you call names like "bigot" "homophobe" or "hater" in order to milk more sympathy and get that Agenda shoehorn into the kiddies' books at gradeschool?

People who are fearless and want to explore every avenue to keep gay teens from killing themselves are probably the ones who care.

Those quick to dismiss new theories and even old hard factual data in a favor of not "rocking the gay boat" are probably those, like Harvey Milk, who don't care as much as they'd like people to think they do about gay teens who are suicidal.

This is just a speculation but I'll venture forth. I'd say that if a gay teen was suicidal because of society making him feel bad about being gay, then those types of people would care a lot. Because it keeps the teen gay and the Agenda rolling forward. After all, how can you use gay teen deaths to forward an Agenda if some of those suicides are from people wanting out of the gay culture but finding themselves unable to access the therapy to do so? But if a gay teen is suicidal because s/he wants out of the culture, then I think it's more like "See ya later Anne Heche. Don't make a mess!".

Sounds extreme I know but we do have the comment from the "Mayor of Castro". Milk ran through young boys like a the mother of the bride through a box of Kleenex. I'm sure he was deeply attached to all of them and never would consider them disposable pieces of young meat. But there is this nagging comment:

Now some other poster came in defense of Milk saying McKinley had threatened suicide many times. The excuse was that Milk would be expected to say something like that because he was tired of McKinley's pathetic pleas for attention [paraphrased]. Yet we know that successful suicides are almost always heralded by multiple threats to do so. And those threats are a cry for help. McKinley did kill himself in his 30s.

From the OP:

Now Johnny C, watch who lines up behind the OP's scenario as a possibility and who doesn't. Right there will be the wheat and the chaff, respectively, of your "who cares" question.

Below: I agree there is much more to consider Johnny. But I'm not the one being dismissive of the Mayo Clinic's words, the Clinical Psychiatrists words, the words of animal handlers/trainers and scads of other scientists who simply and objectively have found sexual orientation to be trainable, and a high correlation of history of being molested in gay men, and a high morbidity in suicide deaths/AIDS and so forth. Those are stark facts. You may have your side of the story but do not dismiss mine.

 

Your assumptions/analyses lead to conclusions, which should ring as being 'tentative' to many people. I realize you think you are right, but no one should take what you're saying here as absolute 'gospel'.

There is MUCH MORE to consider, than what (even) you are attempting to point out.

 

If sexual orientation can be trainable, and indeed it can, inarguably, then children molested by same-gendered perps can be, some of them at the very least, be expected to grow up oriented towards gay sex. And that orientation was imposed, not natural to them. And if they wake up one day and realize they do not want that orientation, for whatever reason, we should listen to them, not beat them down with bad names like "Anne Heche" and allow them therapy to repair the original damage.

Gays don't agree with the above. And that makes me really wonder since the premise is sound and so all that follows is too. And yet gays would opt for a land of make-believe over reality when it comes to these tampered-teens. They seem to do so because a defection in ranks justifies collateral damage. So what if a few gay teens off themselves because they want out? As long as the overall message is "stay gay...it's better that way" gets through to other gays who might dare to want out too. What else but that conclusion could anyone come to if gays are systematically stonewalling some teens from getting reparative therapy that they desperately want for themselves?

Unbelievably one poster here offered up that the molestors somehow "knew" the child was gay and so thusly approached him; that that then didn't qualify as tampering! Unbelievable that right here on this thread, a gay advocate was making excuses for a predator in essence saying the little boy deserved it because he acted gay or effeminate. What's coming first here the chicken or the egg? Real men cannot act that way lest they be targeted by gay men as gay? What a hardened sexual stereotype the gays are imposing on our males young and old? Are "effeminate" boys gay or are they just boys who don't want to adopt strict roles? And if you are either gender not wanting to be pigeonholed in crystallized traditional gender roles does that automatically make you a target for predation by someone who is "just sure you're gay"?

808 all you have to offer is snobbery. Maybe if you offered up some facts to back your claims, with quote and links like I do, you wouldn't have to substitute disparaging snide comments to Dixon for real teeth in this debate..

 

No, again, you're confused. The first study was questioning whether there was an inherent link between homosexuality and pathology, it was not looking to compare rates of pathology like the second study was. The first study acknowledges that if they had used higher sample numbers that they might have found bigger differences in pathology, but that that wasn't the purpose of the study to begin with. They were simply looking for an inherent link, meaning that every homosexual in the study would have to show "worse than average" levels of adjustment if there indeed was an inherent link. Most homosexuals were in the normal range of adjustment, though they did show to be more likely than heterosexuals to be in the lower range. Again, you have to actually read the study, Dixon. It's apparent you haven't.

 

Correlation is not causation, as Ive said 10 times. We do however have others swearing as unwuestioned fact that, even though less than half of the homosexuals surveyed had even experienced discrimination, the higher rates are due to the discrimination, MERELY because the study found a positive correlation between the two. Its just as likely that those who suffer from psychological stress are more likely to perceive discrimination.

 

You really dont have a clue. She took one group of 30 homosexuals and very specifically compared them to 30 heterosexuals. TO COMPARE THE DIFFERENCES, she found no differences. 50 years later they try to explain the differences that every other legitimate research did findsince then. The only thing she showed is that you cant detect homosexuality with a freakin ink blot test like the fools in the 50s believed they could. The Rorschach test is somewhere up there with reading tea leaves as far a real science goes.

 

I understand why this is confusing so I'm going break this down for you:

"A question also arises about the size of the sample used. It is possible that much larger samples - for example, 100 in each group - would show differences."

So, while they found no significant differences between the two small groups of men they used, they acknowledge that this doesn't mean that there aren't any significant differences in reality, and that if they had used a bigger sample size that the differences would have been more significant.

But would we not, in this case, be dealing with a different question, namely, "How many homosexuals, as compared with heterosexuals, are average or better in adjustment, and how many are worse than average?" It seems to me that for the present investigation the question is whether homosexuality is necessarily a symptom of pathology. All we need is a single case in which the answer is negative."

However, they acknowledge that even if the differences were much more significant between the homosexual and heterosexuals groups, that the answer for the question this study was asking still would have been the same. Because the question this study was asking was if there was an inherent connection between pathology and homosexuality. The question was not "how do homosexuals compare to heterosexuals in terms of levels of adjustment", because they would have to had used bigger numbers and more diverse populations to answers that question. So the findings that homosexuals and heterosexuals were mostly about the same in terms of adjustment (though they did find that homosexuals were slightly more likely to rate worse than average than heterosexuals) are not meant to mean anything outside of this study except that there are homosexuals who are well-adjusted individuals with no signs of pathology. And because homosexuals like this exist, then there is no inherent link between homosexuality and pathology.

So, in-order for my second study to contradict the first study, it would have to find that every homosexual involved suffered from some sort of pathology.

 

For any group where sexuality is in question, I imagine there would be a high suicide rate amongst teens simply because it is the period of development when things are most uncertain in terms of sexuality. Many straight teenagers engage in experimental acts and even fantasize about the same sex. These are normal things that happen in discovering who you are and the things you admire in the same sex and opposite sexes.

The problem that I see, in my opinion, is that sexual experiences are taunted the most by those groups who understand it the least and so unfortunately the peer groups of the teenager at risk will be relentless. Not because they hate, but because they fear.