What are your plans?

[Monk]

Your taste in sexual partners really does change over time. The teenage guy sits in the classroom and thinks about some 18-year-old stereotypical blonde girl with firm breasts. As the years go by, he becomes inclined to seek out older and more interesting women, discovering that sexual attraction and human affection is also a highly psychological thing. A grown man who has had his share of the young ones might still find them attractive, however he will most likely prefer somebody older as his primary and emotional sex partner.

There are an infinite number of environmental factors that determine your sexuality, so we don't have to use the extreme examples of polar expeditions and the like. If you suffer sexual abuse, you're more likely to be an abuser with time. If you become obsessed with self control for some reason or another, you're more likely to enjoy being whipped around. I remember living down the street from a brothel in Copenhagen where a succesful football player used to come by to get punished - ask any prostitute and (s)he'll tell you that this fetisch is widely enjoyed by people who have had succes and respect in their lives. Now that we've established these changes, why wouldn't some combination of factors - in my childhood and teenage years, perhaps - be sufficient to gradually change me into a homosexual?

Sexual identity, both orientation and other preferences is only a small part of your "total" identity, so to speak. I've decided to accept the notion that a genetic error could make some people more likely to become gays, but why stop there? Wouldn't it be logical to say that if you're born gay or likely-to-be-gay, you could also be born with tendencies towards other sexual practices (s/m, for example) or partners (blondes over redheads or whatever). Or what would be the difference, then?

My point still stands that based on the above, it's fair to say your sexuality - even if some trait or another -is really a flexible thing that's clay in the hands of your environment and the right people. We're not phedophiles, but we've got to understand that if we had been relocated at birth to ancient Greece, the likeliness of that happening would be much higher - wouldn't you think? Surely a phedophile must be as firm and unchangeable in his sexuality as we are, or what?

(Disclaimer, I'm not saying anything about a connection between homosexuality and phedophilia. I'm trying to see where and if the technical difference lies between your gender preference and your preference in all other aspects.)

[Solly]

I agree with Monk - when I was younger I could only really fantasise about white women. Then once I had an encounter with an Indian girl, I tend to find at least half of ethnically-darker-skinned (not necessarily tanned as such - I hate the tanned blonde look) attractive.

[Solly]

So I reckon gays can alter their behaviour as well.

[Monk]

Boddington's,

Well ... the statement that "gays can alter their behaviour as well" isn't what I'm aiming at. Your sexuality can be influenced from a lot of things, but that doesn't mean you, me or Mr. Fun are capable of changing our sexuality at will, nor that any of us should make the effort.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Monk
Your taste in sexual partners really does change over time. The teenage guy sits in the classroom and thinks about some 18-year-old stereotypical blonde girl with firm breasts. As the years go by, he becomes inclined to seek out older and more interesting women, discovering that sexual attraction and human affection is also a highly psychological thing. A grown man who has had his share of the young ones might still find them attractive, however he will most likely prefer somebody older as his primary and emotional sex partner.

There are an infinite number of environmental factors that determine your sexuality, so we don't have to use the extreme examples of polar expeditions and the like. If you suffer sexual abuse, you're more likely to be an abuser with time. If you become obsessed with self control for some reason or another, you're more likely to enjoy being whipped around. I remember living down the street from a brothel in Copenhagen where a succesful football player used to come by to get punished - ask any prostitute and (s)he'll tell you that this fetisch is widely enjoyed by people who have had succes and respect in their lives. Now that we've established these changes, why wouldn't some combination of factors - in my childhood and teenage years, perhaps - be sufficient to gradually change me into a homosexual?

Sexual identity, both orientation and other preferences is only a small part of your "total" identity, so to speak. I've decided to accept the notion that a genetic error could make some people more likely to become gays, but why stop there? Wouldn't it be logical to say that if you're born gay or likely-to-be-gay, you could also be born with tendencies towards other sexual practices (s/m, for example) or partners (blondes over redheads or whatever). Or what would be the difference, then?

My point still stands that based on the above, it's fair to say your sexuality - even if some trait or another -is really a flexible thing that's clay in the hands of your environment and the right people. We're not phedophiles, but we've got to understand that if we had been relocated at birth to ancient Greece, the likeliness of that happening would be much higher - wouldn't you think? Surely a phedophile must be as firm and unchangeable in his sexuality as we are, or what?

(Disclaimer, I'm not saying anything about a connection between homosexuality and phedophilia. I'm trying to see where and if the technical difference lies between your gender preference and your preference in all other aspects.)

Let's talk about those who have married someone of the opposite gender, had children, etc., then years later, they come out to themselves and others. Then they get a divorce.

Of all the gay men who are older than me, whom I have talked with in the past, all of them have memories of having attractions towards those of the same gender when they were young teenagers before they married someone of the opposite gender. This to me, seems to imply that they have always been gay -- they were never straight, but wanted to believe they could become straight in order to conform.

If the environment would play a major factor in causing sexual orientation to be one's choice, then how is it that homosexuals are found in every country, every culture, and under every form of government in the world? And let's take my own personal experience -- nothing in my Catholic family and my rural environment indicated I would become an openly avowed homosexual.

To understand closeted homosexuals who have married or tried to convert to being straight, you have to understand societal pressures to conform to a heterosexist society.

I'm surprised you haven't heard of the societal pressures to conform to what is perceived as the majority's views of what is normal -- even though for homosexuals, to be gay or lesbian is normal.

And according to the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association -- being homosexual is not a genetic error or any other kind of disorder or illness.

How many more insults would you care to hurl at homosexuals?

[Solly]

Mr Fun

Of all the gay men who are older than me, whom I have talked with in the past, all of them have memories of having attractions towards those of the same gender when they were young teenagers before they married someone of the opposite gender.

And of course, they didn't say this because it is what they thought you wanted to hear!

If the environment would play a major factor in causing sexual orientation to be one's choice, then how is it that homosexuals are found in every country, every culture, and under every form of government in the world?

Some aspects of environment are replicated throughout the world.

To understand closeted homosexuals who have married or tried to convert to being straight, you have to understand societal pressures to conform to a heterosexist society.

Huh? Of course there are pressures, and I believe these pressures should remain, since they may affect some people's sexuality in a positive way.

And according to the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Medical Association -- being homosexual is not a genetic error or any other kind of disorder or illness.

Those liberal gay-friendly organisations are not the final word on the subject.

How many more insults would you care to hurl at homosexuals?

None, I don't believe I have hurled any and if so I apologise.

[Monk]

I haven't hurled any insults at homosexuals. In case you haven't noticed, I've been concentrating on general human sexuality and whether it develops or not. This means that if we do assume I'm hurling insults around, it's on everybody including Bod's and myself as heterosexuals, not just at you and the other gays. You're focusing too much on homosexuality, you need to adress the points I made on other stuff as well. To put it concrete, can you also be born a child abuser or with a huge affection for Indian women, and if not, what's the difference?

If the environment would play a major factor in causing sexual orientation to be one's choice, then how is it that homosexuals are found in every country, every culture, and under every form of government in the world?

Because sex drive and curiosity are basically the things that has made the world go round forever. I know you won't be satisfied with that answer, but then consider you won't find equal representation of gays in all societies, which would be the case if you were correct. You're the history dude, not me, but... if environment doesn't play the major factor, why would there be a lot more gays and phedophiles in ancient Greece (this is, I think, a backed up point by historians) than there is in modern Greece or elsewhere?

I'm sure you're right there isn't an obvious reason you're a homosexual man in the sense that we could point to a dominant mother or other factors that have been speculated to affect things, but I don't see that as any different from a case where someone else from a rural, Catholic background does something very un-rural and un-Catholic, and there are plenty of those cases, but we don't take that persons thoughts and actions and say he was predetermined to say or do so since birth.

To get some things out in the open, yes I understand societal pressures, and you do know heterosexuals feel them too. My best friend through many years is a feminine, gay man and I support full equality for gays and lesbians. I don't want to be called a gay basher and an insult hurler solely because I have an more open-minded idea of what sexuality is and how it works. Honestly, it isn't constructive to imply I've said homosexuality is a disorder. Nope, a form of sexuality is a preference that you might not be able to control but is a living, changing thing as well.

[Giancarlo]

Monk, but what it comes down to, is the fact is you don't know. You will never know because you are not gay. You don't have an open mind what sexuality is, you just don't understand it as it seems. And sexuality is not a preference. I am sorry but that is another lie. Sure attractions may change but if you are a straight male, you will always be attracted to women and if you are a gay male, you will always be attracted to guys. That doesn't change. You are claiming it does.

Your points don't stand.

[Lorizael]

Monk, as least as far as Fez goes, you probably shouldn't continue. He's said before that he won't change his opinions.

Oh, and you did "insult" Mr Fun by implying that homosexuality might be a genetic error. Error has a negative connotation and he chose to interpret it in a way that would get his blood riled up. I know that's not what you meant, though.

Fez, you're being a bit hypocritical by saying others don't back up their points. Monk actually has provided evidence, and your refutation of that evidence was your opinion, an opinion based solely on your own experiences. This is perfectly fine, but don't get angry at other people when they provide actual facts.

[Monk]

You will never know because you are not gay.

Again, too much focus on homosexuality. When I say your sexuality is dynamic and develops, I'm talking about ALL people here. I'm talking about all people, you, me, Fun, Boddington's, the Indian girl and my dentist. Unlike what Mr. Fun thinks, I'm not on an anti-gay crusade of any kind, life is too short for that.

The genes vs. environment debate is a classic one and you certainly don't have to be gay to participate. The reason I will never know any more about this is because you guys won't or can't answer my questions.

In my last post (directed primarily to Mr. Fun, but to you as well), I asked if you could be born with a tendency towards child abuse or Indian girls, and you haven't answered that. If you'd like, you could also answer the one about ancient Greece. They're both relatively simple questions to deal with, assuming I am really so obviously wrong.

[Monk]

Oh, hi Lorizael and thanks for joining in

About the genetical error, you're 100% right it wasn't meant to be taken as such. I figure "error" might not be an appropriate word.

[Japher]

Your posts just reinforce my belief that many heterosexuals can never understand the nature of what it is like to be homosexual.

You will never know because you are not gay.

With arguments like these it is no wonder nobody "knows" or "understands". These kind of statements get your argument nowhere. Why is that when ever someone brings up an argument that there are many factors to being gay than just genetic that you all use these kinds of rebuttals? Why can't you just conceed that it may be possible, but nobody really knows? That is the truth, isn't it? That no one really knows?

I know that my friend married a woman that he was in love with, and had no homosexual inclinations at that time. Maybe this is true, maybe this is not, but that is what he told me. It wasn't until a few years into the marriage that he started to have such thoughts, and it took 3 years for these thoughts to become string enough to divorce his wife. Sounds like a change to me, and not just a lasp in reasoning or psychological disorder that was blocking his nature, and then just one day snapped. How do you explain that? Better yet, can you explain why the other factors that society lends to the development of person take second chair to the nature of a person when determining their sexuality?

Note: Saying "it's a gay thing, you won't understand" won't cut it.

[Monk]

Exactly

[Giancarlo]

I don't believe that people can turn gay... maybe they did not know previously as I didn't. Or I just shoved it off and tried to be straight. That wasn't successful. People can't just change in this area. It isn't like food or music tastes as some try to make it out to be. I will never concede this debate, never ever. That is something I will refuse to do.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Monk
The genes vs. environment debate is a classic one and you certainly don't have to be gay to participate. The reason I will never know any more about this is because you guys won't or can't answer my questions.

Well first off your questions make absolutely no sense. There is no way you compare being gay to child abuse or a particular taste with one ethnic group. That jus doesn't make sense. Also the other reason I evaded your questions is because you equated being gay as being some kind genetic error. I really don't think so. You are painting the wrong picture.