Homosexuality - Choice? or Genetic?

[husker_99]

Yes but is it considered homosexuality if there is no penetrative sex? Yes they might have done it in private but not known pubically. They might have kissed and stroked each other off but if that's all they did does that constitute being homosexual? Likewise with a straight male that is still a virigin but pleases a woman with his fingers and kisses is that enough to be considered straight?

I think homosexuality just means an attraction to the same sex. You don't need to act on that attraction to be gay.

 

So would it be gay if you thought another man was handsome and never acted on it?

[carlfense]

Yes but is it considered homosexuality if there is no penetrative sex? Yes they might have done it in private but not known pubically. They might have kissed and stroked each other off but if that's all they did does that constitute being homosexual? Likewise with a straight male that is still a virigin but pleases a woman with his fingers and kisses is that enough to be considered straight?

I think homosexuality just means an attraction to the same sex. You don't need to act on that attraction to be gay.

 

So would it be gay if you thought another man was handsome and never acted on it?

If you were sexually attracted to him, yes. You are gay. (Or bisexual.)

 

No offense . . . but how is that even a question?

[HuskerShark]

Yes but is it considered homosexuality if there is no penetrative sex? Yes they might have done it in private but not known pubically. They might have kissed and stroked each other off but if that's all they did does that constitute being homosexual? Likewise with a straight male that is still a virigin but pleases a woman with his fingers and kisses is that enough to be considered straight?

I think homosexuality just means an attraction to the same sex. You don't need to act on that attraction to be gay.

 

So would it be gay if you thought another man was handsome and never acted on it?

 

HAHA! If you were physically attracted to the guy? Yes. If you just acknowledge the fact that a guy is handsome? No.

[carlfense]

Yes but is it considered homosexuality if there is no penetrative sex? Yes they might have done it in private but not known pubically. They might have kissed and stroked each other off but if that's all they did does that constitute being homosexual? Likewise with a straight male that is still a virigin but pleases a woman with his fingers and kisses is that enough to be considered straight?

I think homosexuality just means an attraction to the same sex. You don't need to act on that attraction to be gay.

 

So would it be gay if you thought another man was handsome and never acted on it?

 

HAHA! If you were physically attracted to the guy? Yes. If you just acknowledge the fact that a guy is handsome? No.

Exactly.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Other.

 

I think homosexuality has a genetic component, and that genetic component is more likely to exert an influence in determining if the child turns out homosexual or not. However, like a lot of other behaviors, I think the environment in which they are brought up in is also likely to exert some effect. There is a theory, proposed by psychologist DJ Bem, called the exotic becomes erotic theory. It is detailed more in the next paragraph.

 

Bem's theory starts off by stating that there is a genetic/hormonal component that perhaps doesn't code directly for homosexuality, but rather codes for a childhood temperament. That childhood temperament then allows the child to enjoy different activities more than others. Some enjoy male-related activities, and others enjoy female-related activities. Because we often associate with those who share our preferences, a male child who has a temperament that makes him enjoy female-related activities more will associate with a female child who has a typical female temperament. These associations determine if a child is gender-conforming--feeling different than opposite sex peers, or gender-nonconforming--feeling the same as opposite sex peers. There are studies out there showing that anyone shows a heightened physiological arousal when they are in the presence of people with whom they feel different. For the male gender nonconforming child, he will feel physiological arousal in the presence of other males; in turn, this physiological arousal combined with psychological mechanisms will see him pursue male partners (homosexuality) rather than female partners (heterosexuality)

 

So I don't think it's one way or the other. As with a lot of behaviors, it is often a combination of the ways genes interact with the environment. What would be interesting is, if in Bem's study, they identified a female child with a temperament to enjoy male activities, and raised her in an environment which was conducive to female activities to see if she turned out homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. But I'm sure due to ethics something like that can't be performed and it would be really hard to find someone who fit the scenario described above retrospectively.

[knapplc]

Except Homosexuality was different back then too. From Wikipedia: Penetrative sex, however, was seen as demeaning for the passive partner, and outside the socially accepted norm.^[6]

 

It's different today where homosexuality is defined sexually exclusive. In ancient Greece it was more of a mentor thing.

 

Here's my link: http://en.wikipedia...._ancient_Greece

 

I think you're mistaking a very generalized explanation of the act in this Wiki entry. Pederasty in ancient Greece most definitely involved sexual acts, including penetration and oral sex, although penetration wasn't always the case. Often the boy would stand or kneel with his knees tightly together and the adult would put his penis between the boy's thighs, an act they called "intercrural" sex. Mentorship was most definitely involved, but so was sex, as a regular part of the relationship. It was most definitely a romantic relationship in every way, including courtship and consummation.

[HuskerShark]

Other.

 

I think homosexuality has a genetic component, and that genetic component is more likely to exert an influence in determining if the child turns out homosexual or not. However, like a lot of other behaviors, I think the environment in which they are brought up in is also likely to exert some effect. There is a theory, proposed by psychologist DJ Bem, called the exotic becomes erotic theory. It is detailed more in the next paragraph.

 

Bem's theory starts off by stating that there is a genetic/hormonal component that perhaps doesn't code directly for homosexuality, but rather codes for a childhood temperament. That childhood temperament then allows the child to enjoy different activities more than others. Some enjoy male-related activities, and others enjoy female-related activities. Because we often associate with those who share our preferences, a male child who has a temperament that makes him enjoy female-related activities more will associate with a female child who has a typical female temperament. These associations determine if a child is gender-conforming--feeling different than opposite sex peers, or gender-nonconforming--feeling the same as opposite sex peers. There are studies out there showing that anyone shows a heightened physiological arousal when they are in the presence of people with whom they feel different. For the male gender nonconforming child, he will feel physiological arousal in the presence of other males; in turn, this physiological arousal combined with psychological mechanisms will see him pursue male partners (homosexuality) rather than female partners (heterosexuality)

 

So I don't think it's one way or the other. As with a lot of behaviors, it is often a combination of the ways genes interact with the environment. What would be interesting is, if in Bem's study, they identified a female child with a temperament to enjoy male activities, and raised her in an environment which was conducive to female activities to see if she turned out homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual. But I'm sure due to ethics something like that can't be performed and it would be really hard to find someone who fit the scenario described above retrospectively.

 

I think that could have a lot of accuracy. But I think it goes a little bit further:

 

Take for example a boy who enjoys playing with barbies instead of ninja turtles. Then when he gets to school, he enjoys reading books about princesses and fairy tales rather than his male classmates who are reading about dinosaurs. Then they get older and the boy likes to play dress-up in his room rather than going out and playing soccer with the boys in his class. Then say he gets into Jr High and high school, and he chooses to do play production and choir instead of playing sports (which there is nothing wrong with).

 

I don't believe that any person is ever born gay. Behind the scenes in this situation IMO is why the student turns gay. When the boy does things that are typically associated with female activities, people his entire life say, "Hmm, must be gay." His male classmates throughout school will make fun of him and call him gay, even though he may not be. His whole life, all he hears is how gay he is. So it turns into the self-fulfilling prophecy. People tell the kid his whole life how gay he is, so eventually he convinces himself that he is gay.

[JJ Husker]

I think there are cases of it being the result of both genetics and choice. As Po said earlier, I too have witnessed young children that seemd to be destined to be gay through no apparent conscious choice of their own. Some of those observations proved to pan out while others have not. I am also aware of some people who appear to have made that decision without seeming to have any predisposition for it. I would bet many here would assume, due to my political and religious beliefs, that I am some sort of anti-gay. That is not the case. Personally I have a hard time understanding it because I do not have that predisposition but I do realize there is much more to it, in many cases, than a simple decision. That is why I can accept it and do not attempt to infringe on those peoples rights to live their life as they wish. The only thing about it that I struggle with is the widespread attempts to have it be considered completely normal and natural. I do not feel it is either normal or natural but rather that it simply is. Do what you want but please don't ask for my approval or unqualified acceptance and really don't ask for it to be considered some sort of protected minority status. I don't feel it makes a person any less or any more of a person.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't know. I don't think it works the way you say.

 

A couple of disconfirming points: What happens when you have a boy, who does girl-related activities, but isn't called "gay" by his peers? According to self-fulfilling prophecy, he turns out heterosexual. I don't think so.

 

Also, how do you explain the girl who likes doing boy-related activities? A lot of times, and unfortunately, when someone uses the word gay, males are thought of almost every time and females aren't even considered. So if indeed, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, then how can you explain an opposite scenario: a girl liking guy activities?

 

Rarely is something entirely genetic or entirely environmental.

[HuskerShark]

I don't know. I don't think it works the way you say.

 

A couple of disconfirming points: What happens when you have a boy, who does girl-related activities, but isn't called "gay" by his peers? According to self-fulfilling prophecy, he turns out heterosexual. I don't think so.

 

Also, how do you explain the girl who likes doing boy-related activities? A lot of times, and unfortunately, when someone uses the word gay, males are thought of almost every time and females aren't even considered. So if indeed, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy, then how can you explain an opposite scenario: a girl liking guy activities?

 

Rarely is something entirely genetic or entirely environmental.

 

I'm not sure that self-fulfilling prophecy applies to the other situations. There are plenty of girls who like activities that would normally be associated as manly, such as football. In fact, that to me is a huge turn-on to me is for a girl to like football.

 

What happens when you have a boy, who does girl-related activities, but isn't called "gay" by his peers? According to self-fulfilling prophecy, he turns out heterosexual. I don't think so.

That's not how self-fulfilling prophecy works. Just because he is not called gay his whole life doesn't mean that he will turn out straight. There are just so many factors that influence something like the choice to be homosexual. I can maybe see how an elevated estrogen level could have a small affect on a person being gay, but I absolutely believe it is a psychological issue.

 

Here's why: Every homosexual person that I have ever known throughout my entire life has had some sort of parent issue. Some are neglected, some are abused, some have divorced parents so they have a mental block toward heterosexual relations, and some simply don't get along with their parents, so my view on them is that they turn gay to teach their parents a lesson. It's really as simple as that.

 

One kid from my class who actually turned gay in college had divorced parents, but I don't feel like his parent situation was that messed up. He was kind of feminine, and the self-fulfilling prophecy example that I talked about is exactly what happened to him. He actually had a lot of girlfriends in high school and had sexual relationships with a few of them, so I always used that as an example to others why he wasn't gay. Basically, all he heard all through Jr High and High School because he was feminine was that he was gay, and I absolutely think that is why he decided to be gay.

[Enhance]

In ancient Greek culture, homosexuality would have been a foreign term. Males took part in homosexual activity as a means of sexual pleasure, although, there was still a stigma between 'giving' and 'taking', if you catch my drift. Females would have taken part in homosexual behavior, too.

 

In fact, in Spartan culture, it was considered a good thing for an older man to take a younger boy as his sexual partner. Spartan men were also divided into dining halls, of about 20-30 men each, and there was a lot of homosexual behavior in these groups. Furthermore, part of ancient Greek lore described many brave warriors who excelled on the battlefield because their male lover had been with him. There are many stories of famous warriors taking their lovers on war campaigns.

 

The reason I'm saying all this is because I don't think there's a definitive answer. Back then, homosexuality was normal. The concept of being a homosexual wouldn't have made any sense to them. I think some people may be born with a disposition towards homosexuality, but I also think that it can be an open choice for any individual, depending on their background and how they feel about it.

 

Except Homosexuality was different back then too. From Wikipedia: Penetrative sex, however, was seen as demeaning for the passive partner, and outside the socially accepted norm.^[6]

 

It's different today where homosexuality is defined sexually exclusive. In ancient Greece it was more of a mentor thing.

 

Here's my link: http://en.wikipedia...._ancient_Greece

Right, which is why I mentioned there was a stigma between 'taking' and 'receiving'.

 

But, I still don't think it changes the concept much. Homosexuality was commonplace. The word wouldn't have even made sense to them.

 

Yes but is it considered homosexuality if there is no penetrative sex? Yes they might have done it in private but not known pubically. They might have kissed and stroked each other off but if that's all they did does that constitute being homosexual? Likewise with a straight male that is still a virigin but pleases a woman with his fingers and kisses is that enough to be considered straight?

You're comparing two different things here - homosexuality itself is not an act, it's an emotion. Sex is an act. Although people correlate homosexual sex and the term homosexuality together, that's not accurate, at least not in my opinion. That's like assuming a heterosexual male who hasn't had sex yet is a homosexual or bisexual, even though you really have no idea.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Shark, the term self-fulfilling prophecy means turning out the way other's perceive you.

[HuskerShark]

Shark, the term self-fulfilling prophecy means turning out the way other's perceive you.

Exactly. Just because somebody doesn't say that you're gay, if you turn out straight, it wouldn't mean that you fulfilled their prophecy.

 

As far as I know, if girls are involved in more manly things, people normally don't jump on the conclusion that she is lesbian. She may just be a Tomboy, and that's perfectly acceptable. Being a feminine male isn't a normal or commonly acceptable thing in society (even though society is slowly trending that way it seems) so it would cause a lot of people to look at that boy and come to the conclusion that he is gay. He may not be at that point, but the views and vocal opinions of others saying that he is gay may lead him to eventually accept the fact that if others think he is gay, maybe they are right. Hence, the self-fulfilling prophecy.

[knapplc]

Shark, the term self-fulfilling prophecy means turning out the way other's perceive you.

 

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a prediction whose existence affects the prediction's outcome. It doesn't have much to do with how you are perceived by other people. It's like believing in monsters so strongly that, when you turn out the lights in the basement, you double-time it up the stairs so you don't get eaten. That fear of non-existent monsters is the prediction, and your belief that you'll be eaten is a direct result of that fear, whether it has merit or not.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think there is more than one way to define self-fulfilling prophecy; I think. If that's the case than I could just be using a different version of the word. But the way you defined it knapp isn't how shark was using it.