Gay?

[Yak]

The aspect of sexual promiscuity probably stems from many factors. Don't most young men (and older ones outside of committed relationships), regardless of sexual preference, dream of being able to shag anyone they fancy?

Not me, no. I always wanted it to be personal. I simply don't have wiring that can look at an individual of whatever gender and decide on the basis of no data other than what might be randomly acquired in some club or scene or pub or bar setting that I would want to share that level of intimacy and vulnerability with them. The "wanting to shag anything that moved" thing never applied and it always puzzled and scared the fuck out of me, to be honest.

So no, it's not general.

\
(:-) - Yak
/

[Kemper_Boyd]

Bloody hell this is an interesting thread which I've only just read.

I personally believe there's no such thing as straight or gay,
just different degrees of bisexuality, anyone beg to differ?

I also agree with Yak, sexuality is just one aspect of a persons
life, and I'd even suggest not the most important, at least
for a fair part of a persons life.

Oh and Lisawolf is quite right, half the problem is people
confusing gender and sexuality which appear to be quite
weakly correlated IMHO. I'd bet that if you could ever
conduct a truely honest survey you'd find that human
sexuality is much more varied than popular opinion
suggests. I think this is becoming clear as society
generally becomes more tolerant and open, and
hopefully bodes well for the future.

[Harlequin]

The aspect of sexual promiscuity probably stems from many factors. Don't most young men (and older ones outside of committed relationships), regardless of sexual preference, dream of being able to shag anyone they fancy?

Not me, no. I always wanted it to be personal. I simply don't have wiring that can look at an individual of whatever gender and decide on the basis of no data other than what might be randomly acquired in some club or scene or pub or bar setting that I would want to share that level of intimacy and vulnerability with them. The "wanting to shag anything that moved" thing never applied and it always puzzled and scared the fuck out of me, to be honest.

So no, it's not general.

Hmmm... I think there was the word "most" in there somewhere .

And did I suggest a prerequisite of fancying the person/beast/thing as well ?

I personally believe there's no such thing as straight or gay, just different degrees of bisexuality, anyone beg to differ?

I do, but only on the basis that there's far more to sexual preference than the degrees to which one may fancy, shag and/or love two genders of human. Should I dig out my omnisexual sphere rant again?

[...] IMHO. I'd bet that if you could ever conduct a truely honest survey you'd find that human sexuality is much more varied than popular opinion suggests. I think this is becoming clear as society generally becomes more tolerant and open, and hopefully bodes well for the future.

Ah, right. There shouldn't be any need, then .

H.
_________________
"I am a young gay male looking for someone to show me the ropes (if you
understand what I mean), no strings attached."
[badboy - posting to a group where personal ads are forbidden]

[Dave]

The aspect of sexual promiscuity probably stems from many factors. Don't most young men (and older ones outside of committed relationships), regardless of sexual preference, dream of being able to shag anyone they fancy?

Not me, no. I always wanted it to be personal. I simply don't have wiring that can look at an individual of whatever gender and decide on the basis of no data other than what might be randomly acquired in some club or scene or pub or bar setting that I would want to share that level of intimacy and vulnerability with them. The "wanting to shag anything that moved" thing never applied and it always puzzled and scared the fuck out of me, to be honest.

So no, it's not general.

I certainly feel that way. Everyone is different of course. However, I control it due to quos and norms inflicted inside me by society. Some of them have positive intensions, some of them don't (i.e. if I had sex with everything and anything, I'd likely get a deadly STD or overpopulate the planet).

I do purposely control this behavior however. I don't really want a relationship with someone that's purely physical. There's an emotional part that's involved, something that makes us human. I shun promiscuous behavior because of this. Still, if there were no strings attached in any way shape or form, I’d shag just about anything that gets me a hard on.

The "scene" allows large numbers of blokes to gather together in high testosterone environments all, theoretically, with the same thing on their minds. There are rarely any constraints such as "family" to consider and most of the previously accepted rules of heterosexual relationships can be dumped. It seems obvious that the only thing homosexual men have in common is that they fancy and want to have sexual encounters with other men (that other factor, love, appears to be mostly irrelevant here, possibly because in the early days of the "scene" long-term gay relationships seemed an impossible dream for most). I don't think that this is problematic for most single people (as long as suitable care is taken); it's those long-term relationships that are most likely to complicate things. I know people who have polygamous and polyamorous arrangements that seem to work but we both know from our personal experiences that they can be unstable. It's not uncommon for one person to change their views and desire a more exclusive relationship (for sexual tastes are fluid, not permanently set), leading to much nastiness and lasting emotional scars. (I once thought that jealously was a pointless reaction that should be overcome with simple rationality, until that bastard emotion leaped out from nowhere and pounced on my heart). Good luck to those who can manage it, though.

50% of marriages fail, and not everyone marries. Of course, this statistic includes (to my knowledge) people who re-marry and re-divorce, so it may be misleading. Simply saying that homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships fail does not make them worse that “socially accepted” marriage. I’d like to know what the success rates of such union ships. However, since they’re illegal just about everywhere in the world, these types of statistics may not exist. The legal aspects (at least for homosexuality) are quickly changing in the U.S., so we may find out in the near future. But from my experience, most of my homosexual friends look for the same qualities in a relationship that “normal” people do.

So, your sexuality is mainly defined by society. What it finds sexy is what you find sexy. What it finds unacceptable is what you find unacceptable.

Let me elaborate on this some more. I was listening to National Public Radio and they were talking about a blind person. This person had his eyesight when he was very young (approx. 6 years old), but completely lost it to some now curable form of blindness. He recently had surgery to fix the problem, except now he’s in his mid 60’s. Just imagine going from sight to no sight for six decades to sight again. It boggles the mind.

Anyway, this provided an ample opportunity to test how ones brain responds to such drastic changes in sight. Seeing again for him was like a completely new experience. He didn’t understand how it really worked or how to use it since he’d been living through sound and touch virtually his entire life. When showed faces, he could not tell the difference between men and women. He could not distinguish one person from another. He could recognize they were human, but that’s it.

Later, he was trained what the differences between men and women are. These included things like beards, long hair, earrings, makeup, and necklaces. After he learned these attributes, he could tell faces apart from one another simply through these visual queues. Still, if a man put on earrings makeup and a necklace, he’d mistaken them for a woman. This essentially proves that visual queues for maleness and femaleness are inflicted into us by our environment and society. We learn them; we are not programmed with them. Our brain is born as an empty word processing document. Anything can be written into it, but we have to type it first.



Most scientists believe that homosexuality is genetically determined as well. One of my gay friends knew he was gay since the age of three. This was way before he became sexually active, but he knew it way back then. So, there is truth to this. Some people’s brains seem to be hard wired for this activity. This is seen in animals (like the dogs, cats, and hamsters we all heard about ). Homosexuality is seen in dolphins as well. From what I remember, the percentage of homosexual dolphins is about the same as it is for homosexual humans.

My viewpoint is that human sexuality is determined more by social factors than by genetic factors, but genetic factors are a determining factor in some instances. This view is termed psychosocial orientation. I took a course in college about human sexuality this past summer and learned most of this. The more I dig into myself, the more I support and believe this theory of human sexuality.



I have explored relatively deep into my mind about this issue of sexuality. I am very heterosexual, but I have been aroused by men. When I first felt this feeling, I was rather scared and shocked. I essentially denied it and suppressed it for numerous reasons (virtually all at the fault of society).

I’ve dug real deep into this. I have determined that my brain is not hard wired to be attracted to males OR females. Rather, I’m hardwired simply for sexual gratification. When I saw “sexual” images of men, my arousal was simply based around the fact that this image projected the idea and feeling of sex into me. I didn’t really want to have sex with any of them. Rather, I just wanted to have sexual gratification.

There is a scale (I cannot remember the name of it) which positions people based upon their degree of sexual orientation. One end is completely heterosexual, the middle is bisexual (EDIT: this originally said transsexual, it's suppose to be bisexual), and the other end is homosexual. I would probably classify myself as being in-between completely hetero and completely transsexual. Everyone varies along this scale.

This drive for sex has nothing to do with a relationship. It’s simply a high my brain demands, similar to that of a drug addict. A relationship is highly correlated with sexual pleasure since it appears that are brains are hardwired for it. When you feel love, compassion, and care for another person more than anyone else in the world, most people desire to express and enhance that emotion sexually. Vows of marriage and loyalty are purely societal rules adopted and practiced by people.



There’s also the theory that men wish to rape women whenever they could. It is completely unknown how human relationships existed thousands of years ago. Some believe that men would rape women whenever they wanted to, and that this desire is still programmed into our brains (or most of them). This helped to increase population growth. I believe that this type of behavior is seen in some animals (I cannot remember which ones, so I may be wrong about this).

This topic of genetically programmed to rape is VERY taboo in our society. Rape is looked down upon greatly in the United States. Many feminists reject this idea, but most of them are not men, are they?

I think that this viewpoint does hold some truth. Proving it may require inhumane testing on subjects (sticking people into a bubble world like The Truman Show and subjecting them to different stimuli and the like). It’s probably even more likely that someone will write a human brain emulator some day and prove/disprove all or most of this. Mmmmmm… Human brain emulator…



I guess the point of me writing all this is to tell you to keep an open mind about things, a VERY open mind. Doing so will let you explore and enlighten you to the truth, or at least partway there. Everything above is not 100% correct, but I believe that it captures the essence of these very “unacceptable” practices in our world. My two, er, three or so cents.

[Harlequin]

[...] Simply saying that homosexual relationships and polygamous relationships fail does not make them worse that ?socially accepted? marriage. I?d like to know what the success rates of such union ships. However, since they?re illegal just about everywhere in the world, these types of statistics may not exist. The legal aspects (at least for homosexuality) are quickly changing in the U.S., so we may find out in the near future. But from my experience, most of my homosexual friends look for the same qualities in a relationship that ?normal? people do.

IME, monogamous homosexual relationships aren't particularly more prone to failure than heterosexual ones. Polygamous and polyamorous ones, however, (whatever the mix of genders) have far more potential points of failure: there are two sets of feelings involved between two people (one set each way), six between three people; twelve between four people, etc. It does work for some people, as I wrote, but I would advise anyone to consider the potential consequences should things go wrong.

Most scientists believe that homosexuality is genetically determined as well. [...]

I think "some" rather than "most". Of those working in these fields who do believe in single determining factors, though, scientists such as neurologists and geneticists naturally look for physical causes; non-scientists, such as psychologists, tend to look for psychological ones. Neuropsychologists probably sit on the fence .

My viewpoint is that human sexuality is determined more by social factors than by genetic factors, but genetic factors are a determining factor in some instances. This view is termed psychosocial orientation. [...]

Think of it as writing on a heavily grained lump of wood, with the wood as the genes and one's will to write clearly as the environment. Two genetically different people raised in the same environment may turn out very differently, and the same can be said for mono-zygotic twins raised in different environments. It appears that genes influence psychological potentials instead of being deterministic [*][/size]. Just about all of the complex individual psychological traits that we recognise in humans and other species are likely to be influenced by the side effects of the interaction of different genetic factors in combination with other environmental and experiential factors (and at some point possibly even "free will") both before and after birth.

I have explored relatively deep into my mind about this issue of sexuality. I am very heterosexual, but I have been aroused by men. When I first felt this feeling, I was rather scared and shocked. I essentially denied it and suppressed it for numerous reasons (virtually all at the fault of society).

Yep. I felt the same the first time that I caught myself being aroused by females. Something in my mind still tries to suppress it (primarily the result, I feel, of having labelled myself as "homosexual" for so long).

There is a scale (I cannot remember the name of it) which positions people based upon their degree of sexual orientation. One end is completely heterosexual, the middle is transsexual, and the other end is homosexual. I would probably classify myself as being in-between completely hetero and completely transsexual. Everyone varies along this scale.

I think that you're referring to the Kinsey Scale (developed by Alfred Kinsey in the 40s) and that by "transsexual" you meant to write "bisexual". "Transsexuality" applies to gender (usually a discrepancy between physical and mental gender identity), not to sexual attraction. As I wrote earlier, I consider sexuality to be far more complex than can be represented on a one-dimensional line. I prefer to envision an omnidimensional sphere in which a multitude of different preferences and traits can be represented (most of which can change over time).

I guess the point of me writing all this is to tell you to keep an open mind about things, a VERY open mind. Doing so will let you explore and enlighten you to the truth, or at least partway there. [...]

Indeed .

H.

P.S. Damn! I seem to have started on the omnisexual spheres anyway .

[*][/size] Genes aren't deterministic even where physical development is concerned. People with an XY chromosome combination, for example, can still be born physically female as development in the womb involves the interaction of different factors including genes and the host body's hormone release. Similarly, the correct production of proteins relies upon the interaction of genes and the host body's prions (without which the genes don't "know" what shape the proteins should be).
_________________
"Love your enemies. It confuses them."
[Harlequin]

[gilesgoat]

This does leads me to consider, though, that you have an unusual perspective on how one's sexuality can impact just about every area of one's life (in terms of how one lives it and views it, rather than what one converses about).

"Unusual" ? .. hmm .. seems quite clear to me and not unusual at all.

Naturally, you're not just "a fluffy" or "a coder" or "a hippioid" -- all of those attributes and many more mingle with and influence each other to create a wonderfully unique person.

Well .. luckily he's not ONLY that, otherwise it would be fairly easy to
find many yakkies around the world, probably even more "coder"
or "hippoid" or "fluffy"

I know some people that are even more "coder" than Yak ... but
.. they really are just coder, and quite few more than a "half human
interface between a machine and the rest of the world" .. they are
happy anyway in their lifes .. but they live really in "another world"
you'd never see such people in a LJ or such and hardly out of their
houses.

I think that, starting from around adolescence, people tend to graduate from trying to fit in with everyone to looking for a subculture to fit into -- a switch from "I'm a human" to "I'm one of us", where that "us" is distinct from everyone else[*][/size]. This is probably, for most of those affected, where the previously mentioned self-identification-by-sole-aspect begins. For some, it seems, that sole aspect assumes such importance (due to reaction to prejudice or other factors) that they never properly achieve its incorporation but instead continue to define themselves almost entirely by that aspect alone.

Well it's true that probably all the people starting from a certain
age pass through a phase where they need to find an "identification"
or let's say "their place in the world" or "define themselves".

So in fact even aderhing to some stereotype can be a way to become
I am one of us and give them a certain "security" and "definition".

Well .. speaking about me my life really has been quite strange, in
fact for long time of my life I've not been able to understand "who am
I" or "what is my identification ?" ..

I was quite rejected from most society and more than "too look for
my place" I spent quite some time observing and trying to understand
"what was wrong in me" or so ..

Finally I found my identification, very simple, "me is just me" .. and
anybody is the same ... there are 2 reasons I think to form "groups"
.. one reason is people that form a group to find an identification ..
and this to me is something that leads to "serious troubles" ...

Another reason is people that already have their own identification
and collects togeter cause some common point of view or mood
or whatever they share.

If you drop into "something" because you need to identify/understand
what you are ..well .. can be a starting point, but has to be, IMHO, not
much more than this, a starting place that can help you to identify
yourself .. can't be "what yourself is".

Concerning the media, I feel that youngsters, having decided that they are "gays", tend to look to such sources for cues as to how to behave as "a gay" in the absence of suitable real-life role models.

Speaking about examples and models I think that life can give
and supply some really nice examples and models to follow, but
one has always to understand those models/examples and find his/her
own way to "feel" and "follow" them.

Merely following something that "it is affirmed to be a good model"
without putting ourselves questions and confronting with the model
does not work well ...

(although I also hope that they won't be as bland as current stereotypes -- why can't we see more characters like the longhaired mechanic Bradley who used to be in Crossroads?. Okay, I'll stop drooling now ).

You can always dress up and set yourself like that if you like

If there's no "model" than be you the model if you like it

The aspect of sexual promiscuity probably stems from many factors. Don't most young men (and older ones outside of committed relationships), regardless of sexual preference, dream of being able to shag anyone they fancy?

Yes, there are some people like that, no matter age, orientation and such
the fact to be "dream to shag anyone" is a part of personality/mind, some
people like it and are this way, maybe as you say (and from what I
see every day it seems really so) "many" are or at least think this way.

is problematic for most single people (as long as suitable care is taken); it's those long-term relationships that are most likely to complicate things.

What do you mean here ? Can you explain better ?

I know people who have polygamous and polyamorous arrangements that seem to work but we both know from our personal experiences that they can be unstable. It's not uncommon for one person to change their views and desire a more exclusive relationship (for sexual tastes are fluid, not permanently set), leading to much nastiness and lasting emotional scars. (I once thought that jealously was a pointless reaction that should be overcome with simple rationality, until that bastard emotion leaped out from nowhere and pounced on my heart). Good luck to those who can manage it, though.

I know some people into this "poly" thing ..

Word that just as I hear it freaks me out ! .. and belive me I have
very good reasons to feel this way .. YEEEEUCK !!

Yes .. let's say "good luck to those that can" ...

But from what I've see we could highly discuss and quite some doubts
arise into "poly" realtionships .. of any kind ... it's no doubt that they
are a really delicate equilibrium of things that quite easely be spoiled
leading to incredible disasters ...

Well .. good luck to those .. but stay light years away from me, if
not, well .. consider billy goats have horns and know very well how
to use them ...

[Yak]

I was quite rejected from most society and more than "too look for
my place" I spent quite some time observing and trying to understand
"what was wrong in me" or so ..

Finally I found my identification, very simple, "me is just me" .. and
anybody is the same ... there are 2 reasons I think to form "groups"
.. one reason is people that form a group to find an identification ..
and this to me is something that leads to "serious troubles" ...

Yeah, I SO agree with you here Giles... took me a while to learn it and I spent many years basically hating myself because I felt like I was a freak and that therefore I was precluded from having any happiness like "normal" people did, and I ended up resenting the rest of the world for being able to have happiness where I could not... eventually after a lot of pain I realised that hey, it is OK to be me, I am just me and being me is fine ...

Another thing I learned is that seeking to be part of a group that defines itself in terms of sexual orientation can be a very misleading thing... I tried that once and... well, let's just say that I still haven't completely recovered from that experience and I am not sure I ever will... commonality of orientation does NOT imply any kind of commonality of ethics or personality or indeed *any* of the things that are *really* important...

But that was a long time ago and belongs to a very dark part of my past... now I am a much happier and more content Yakkie, happy to be me, and with a bunch of good friends and the kind of happiness in my life that is exactly the kind that I thought for so many years would never be possible for me .

Result, really ...

\
(:-) - Yak
/

[gilesgoat]

I only wish to say here that this seems to me another of those
really interesting threads

I think this to be another thread worth for archiving

[korruptor]

Seconded

[Harlequin]

This does leads me to consider, though, that you have an unusual perspective on how one's sexuality can impact just about every area of one's life (in terms of how one lives it and views it, rather than what one converses about).

"Unusual" ? .. hmm .. seems quite clear to me and not unusual at all.

To us, perhaps, but most people find it very difficult to understand.

(although I also hope that they won't be as bland as current stereotypes -- why can't we see more characters like the longhaired mechanic Bradley who used to be in Crossroads?. Okay, I'll stop drooling now ).

You can always dress up and set yourself like that if you like

I liked him because he was unique. If I copied him then I wouldn't be. Anyway, he was good-looking and I'm... me .

is problematic for most single people (as long as suitable care is taken); it's those long-term relationships that are most likely to complicate things.

What do you mean here ? Can you explain better ?

I mean that such sexual freedom is generally fine for single people. Once one finds a romantic partner, however, having sexual encounters with other people can cause problems.

Yes .. let's say "good luck to those that can" ...

Indeed .

[...] I am a much happier and more content Yakkie, happy to be me, and with a bunch of good friends and the kind of happiness in my life that is exactly the kind that I thought for so many years would never be possible for me .

Result, really ...

H.
_________________
"Most people in our "western"-style societies believe the rhetoric about
Democracy without a closer look. When you look at it more closely you
see that someone has peeled the label off the democracy can and pasted
it over the capitalism can."
[ant]

[randomdude]

Going offtopic slightly, hope no-one minds..

I know some people that are even more "coder" than Yak ... but
.. they really are just coder, and quite few more than a "half human
interface between a machine and the rest of the world" .. they are
happy anyway in their lifes .. but they live really in "another world"
you'd never see such people in a LJ or such and hardly out of their
houses.

I would say this isolation is a better state of mind. I would much prefer to be able to lock myself in my house, sever my net connection, and just code all day than to socialise. But I can't-- it's my human brain and theese irrational emotions that say that I need to contact other 'carbon units' and talk to them, about things that really don't matter. I tried going without social contact a while ago -- suffice to say it didn't work. I see the emotions as, yes, what makes us human, but I'd much rather be a machine and operate perfectly, defined by inputs and a process to make a certain output. Instead I am so flawed, taking input and fucking about with it until its completely devoid of meaning, and twisting it to my own end, until I end up with such a useless piece of crap that I excape from it by enveloping myself with computers and their relative perfection.

Sorry if thats kinda incoherent..

[Stone]

Splitting off slightly into what Yak and Giles said, I totally agree with the 'finding a group' thing. I never fitted into society well, and while I tried initially to group myself based on various single aspects of myself, this never worked out well. It's only been in the last couple of years that I've realised I have no one group of friends - it's not just a question of 'they are part of this group or that group so they will be my friend' but entirely judged on an individual basis. I think of it as being like a Venn diagram with different circles representing my different interests (examples: Jag stuff, TKD, PC stuff, reading, kinds of music I like) and while it's generally true that the more circles any one person fits into, the more likely I am to get along well with them, someone will not become my friend just on the strength of being in one of those circles. Having lived this way for a while, I'm increasingly inclined to think this is the way things are supposed to be in our dealings with others - certainly I've not had any nasty revelations due to completely misjudging someone's character recently, which regrettably did use to happen. So I tend to think the whole group-identification thing is at best misguided and at worst dangerous.

And incidentally you will occasionally find someone who fits in enough circles to effectively be 'your other half' - this happened to me recently, and we spent weeks going 'yeah, me too!' - great stuff

With apologies for rambling

Stone

[punkrulesok]

And incidentally you will occasionally find someone who fits in enough circles to effectively be 'your other half' - this happened to me recently, and we spent weeks going 'yeah, me too!' - great stuff

Its amazing, that feeling, isnt it. For lack of a proper deffinition, i think its called LOVE!
I mean, no one person can define what love is, because, to every person, it is different, i reckon. You just "know"
It might be a cliche, but when you find "that special person", it does change your outlook on the world surround you. Things that wound you up, dont matter anymore; certain things that you thought you would allways be really passionate about, all of a sudden go on the back burner.

[arron]

I'm a sort of anti-sexual. I feel love and compassion for virtually everyone who I meet, but I have no desire to get into sexual relations with them..it just doesn't happen. I've been known to hug people, have fun with them and the idea of having children is attractive to me.

The feeling for this is no based on guilt or fear..it's like I have almost zero desire for it. A pint of lager has the same appeal as drinking urine..I don't have any good or bad feelings about doing either..

[Harlequin]

So I tend to think the whole group-identification thing is at best misguided and at worst dangerous.

It seems to be a normal part of growing up. It can take people many years to become truly rounded individuals beyond the confines of a few group labels. Some people, however, never seem to manage it at all.

And incidentally you will occasionally find someone who fits in enough circles to effectively be 'your other half' - this happened to me recently, and we spent weeks going 'yeah, me too!' - great stuff

May I suggest, in connection with another thread, that this is the primary person to whom you should consider opening up?

With apologies for rambling

Ramble away. It's not my footpath .

H.
_________________
* Macho Law forbids me from admitting I'm wrong.