When Did You Choose To Be Straight?

reply to post by archetype_one

Sorry, I must have overlooked your previous post about the scale. That's awesome though, I'm glad we share the idea that there is a spectrum!

Well it's a very approachable method of identifying and explaining sexuality.

The more I try to defend homosexuality the more I realize that asking to be validated, in some ways, is also just asking to be put in a box and labeled and by doing so I am putting everyone else in their little boxes and labeling them as well - Is this really progress?

I know that statistically about half my friends are not exclusively heterosexual, who have looked at other guys and felt drawn to them at least a few times. Trouble is none will say that and be open about it out of fear. Where I come from, one's sexuality is closely tied to one's manliness and so to stray (even a little) from the standard is looked at as a personal threat. I had this cowardice. There were a few boys whom I found myself looking at- like around their middle and down their back and just wanting to touch, ya know. Catching myself doing that terrified me, at first.

Until we get to that point when one's sexuality doesn't affect social status (like utopia or something), these kinds of problems will continue.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by DantesLost


Finally making some sense, so you’re a lesbian. Now you said even at a young age your first attraction was to girls, you’ve never felt any connection to males. Even when you experimented with boys you didn’t like it. The problem is there are bisexuals and the very existence of bisexuals means being anything but heterosexual is a choice – let me explain.

If you were to believe someone can be born bisexual that would mean they can be attracted to both sexes, the problem being humans secrete pheromones that only the opposite sex can react to. That’s why woman look more attractive them men – to attract the opposite sex. That’s why in the animal world the female generally looks more attractive then the male – so he’ll be lured by her to have sex – reproduce – keep the species going.

Because there are no pheromones that attract the same sex, we know scientifically sexual relations are only meant for the opposite sex. If someone is bisexual then they are by nature attracted to the opposite sex which means the attraction they may have to the same sex is not something they are born with in their genetic code – meaning that attraction for the same sex is a choice!

reply to post by andre18


Pheromones don't play much or a role in human courtship, it is there, don't get me wrong, but there is no pheromone spray that you can spray on and drive the opposite sex with wild.

We react to sight more, we judge people on their physique at first.
I'm telling you, you would be hard pressed to find any mammals who rely solely on pheromones any more, insects yes, but mammals no.

Also, I would believe that everyone is born bisexual, and then change as they develop in the womb and become more sexually dimorphic.

they are born with in their genetic code

There is very very little evidence that a gay gene exist. Just a short look at wikipedia we can see that there are loads of theoretical causes for why people have various orientations, and it is likely a combination of many of them.

[edit on 27/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

There was no choice. From very young I watched loving relationships between husband and wife (or brother and sister), mother and son (or mother and stranger), between brothers, father and daughter (or sister or stranger) exchanges of spite and concern between females associated to the same, et al. And then, American perversity to Jewish and Eastern Orthodox catholic views. (as viewed through reserved foriegn eyes-it truly is somewhat of a shock; up close and personal it is a compliation of confusion). I don't care what people do amoungst themselves, but when it crosses my table, my honest opinion as what I would share with a friend or acrossed my table, is as I say it.

Though it may come out different than as I mean, due to pc and dialetical issues. People will argue against the phrase perversion. I would argue the dike around the corner finds me attractive-pervert. A european would know the look I am giving means piece of 8888.
Male or female I feel the same towards you if I have expressed disinterest. One step after and you may as well be dead in my eyes. Though due to law I will not kill you-I would LOVE too.

Anyways, my story:
I woke from my place, where I had been kept safe ill, within my parents (grandmother/mother/wetnurse/non relation relation--step father/grandfather non relation relation) bed after a long hospitalization away from home; to the grunting. I watched his face and looked at hers, and I wanted that what they shared. It has always been so, and I have had it for myself.

I did however that young wonder while looking at at neighborhood female...what their place was, if it were the same, if they did with each other what my folks had done. I had heard about the Romans in other words. I didn't wonder in interest. I wondered in philosophy. I didn't know one way or another the place of women, and the Roman tales only spoke towards males.

Until then I had had only Hebrew prayers walking to synagouge with the other children on a rope. With the onset of Catholosism I heard the words which answered the scientific question of what was God's purpose of the woman pertaining to women's sexuality. I just wanted the answer to the question, least it annoy me unanswered. And there I found it, and there I was happy with the answer as it presented itself to me.

But then there was the adoption. To a hooker terrorist gold digging murderor. A Manson queen if you will. Who, for what ever sick purposes forced me with herself and other same sexed non sibling siblings. And for all the tolerance I have in the world for homosexuals and for bisexuals to as I live as solitary creatures within their own right and own reckoning...I truly found my apiphany of straitness being stolen from me while in the tender years of youth to have been the most heinous theft a christian/muslim could impart upon a Jew. And I felt it was done for that purpose.

Because, in my religion, homosexuality was forbidden, and there I was robbed of my place with my people. I felt it was a christian tactic of anti semitism, accepted under the table as a neccesary means to an end.

And so, it was never a matter of when I decided to be strait. It was a matter of when my straitness was robbed from me when I decided to be who I was.

Sorry for the long answer: I have been drinking.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by HugmyRek]

reply to post by andre18


Here is what you're looking for Andre18

Gay men respond differently to phermones

In an experiment, men and heterosexual women sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone. The homosexual men's brains responded differently from those of heterosexual males, and in a similar way to the women's brains.

Lesbians Respond Differently To Human Phermones

It found that lesbians' brains respond in a fashion more similar to that of heterosexual men than of heterosexual women when exposed to the sweat chemical and a synthetic chemical that has been detected in female urine.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by toochaos4u]

reply to post by toochaos4u


Well I think that's a myth busted, right there.

reply to post by Good Wolf


I wasn’t trying to point out how potent pheromones are in causing such a sexual desire as to drop on their knees in lust - just that a man’s pheromones only cause females to react in a sexual manner to the male as female pheromones do the same back to males. There is NO evidence found that the secretion of a males pheromones can cause another male to sexually desire another male.

It’s impossible!

It’s called evolution, only men attract woman, only women attract men. If you’re born bisexual then that means through evolution over billions of years the organism has an option on what sex it prefers. Meaning not every single person who’s born is meant to officially procreate because of being born with the choice of either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. If men were meant to be attracted to men as well as women procreation wouldn’t be an essential part of life and females wouldn’t look more attractive then males to lure them because males would be competing for other males as well as well as females competing for other females. Forget the pheromones its called procreation. I’m not a Christian, not even a theist but when it comes to commonsense you’ve got to look at this stuff with a brain.

But, the only reason animals compete is to be able to reproduce, to mate, to be the dominant male in the heard. Females don’t compete for other males, they consent to the male who wins the challenge to mate with her. The entire the idea that we are born bisexual is ludicrous because evolution on works in procreations favour.

The only way you could defy my reasoning it to point out a specific type of fish that can change sex depending on how many other females or males are in the area. If there are too many of one sex some will change their sex so there can be more breeding.

The reason why that still doesn’t defy my main point is even though the fish may change sex, they still breed with the opposite sex. If they were to mate or just to have some sort of homosexual behaviour there wouldn’t be any need to change sex to cope with the outer balance of sex types in the area in the first place.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18

It’s impossible!

No it isn't. It's impossible for that our pheromones to work on anything outside of our species but it's all go inside. The reason for this is that we all start off in the womb without a gender. Biochemistry then starts to force us to develop in either a feminine or masculine way. It's called sexual dimorphism.

For males to have receptors that react to female pheromones and vice verce, the potential for both to develop must be present in an embryo. If there are complications in development and a female becomes masculenised or a male to become hypermasculenised then a child will be produced who will react to pheromones unlike their own sex.

That is to say that a man's "receptors" might be 'tuned' from birth to react to other male pheromones and the reverse for women.

Evolution doesn't prevent this in anyway.

However debating this is a bit pointless as it was proved in this post.

End of story.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by Good Wolf


That’s an interesting fact I didn’t know about. So we are born genderless....hmmmm

That’s interesting because crocodiles lay there eggs in way where depending on the temperature of the environment the eggs can either hatch male or female. I can’t remember how it goes exactly but something like if it’s cold they hatch female if it’s hot male....

Which means the embryos are genderless in the egg until the effect of the temperature sets in causing them to become ether male or female.....interesting.

A thought though – Are you saying that everyone is who’s gay is because of these receptors tuned into both sexes? Could that be tested? Has there been a test done to prove whether or not every single person who’s gay or bisexual is because their receptors are tuned the same sex? If so I might lean towards the belief of being born gay and not a choice.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by andre18]

reply to post by andre18

A thought though – Are you saying that everyone is who’s gay is because of these receptors tuned into both sexes? Could that be tested? Has there been a test done to prove whether or not every single person who’s gay or bisexual is because their receptors are tuned the same sex? If so I might lean towards the belief of being born gay and not a choice.

It's not got much to do with 'receptors' as I said earlier, pheromones don't do much in humans any more. They are but a part of the whole picture.
Brain scans have shown that homosexual male brains react neurologically to other attractive males exactly how a heterosexual female will to the same attractive males. And homosexual female brains, in turn, behave like heterosexual males.

Now considering actual homosexual testimony, where most will say "I always was" and from what we know of brain development from conception into early childhood, it can be said that the wiring of the brain in the womb has worked backwards for some reason.

It seems that (at least to me) that non-heterosexuality is one way in which a child may have 'complications' from pregnancy.

As for bisexuals like myself, it seems that initial innate bisexuality from the embryo stage didn't really change as it was supposed to.

-----And sorry for sounding like a knob previously.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by paperplanes
Oh for crying out loud, how many times will people resort to the "if we were all gay..." argument? No one is making the slightest allusion to the human population "all [becoming] gay". This is one of the most ridiculous comments found in discussions of homosexuality, but remarkably, it makes a frequent appearance.

This was just to show that it is not in nature’s best interest, and so it is not by natural design, but an abnormality.

As for the "homosexuals do not procreate" assertion you're maintaining, you have to ignore history and the present day to keep it up. There are mountains of evidence of self-identified homosexuals reproducing through heterosexual behavior. You are conflating the identity, the desire, with the behavior. The two are not necessarily one and are indeed often separate within the same individual. As for non-human species, it is similarly individualistic. Some animals have been found to bond exclusively with individuals of the same gender, never procreating. Others of this group contribute by "adopting" the offspring or eggs of others. Still others show a willingness to copulate and pair-bond with both genders. And the preferences of a great many cannot be gauged, as sexual behavior may not be identifiable as either a pleasurable or dutiful experience of the individual.

I have already said that humans with our intelligence have the ability to manipulate nature. In the case of a gay person wanting children he can either have sex with a female or do it artificiality. The act of having sex with a female is undesirable for him since he desires same sex, but they can get pass these undesirable feelings with their intelligence or bypass it all together artificiality as many do.

When talking about the raw sexual drive in animals, to have desire in a direction that prevents the ability to procreate is abnormal, for nature’s number one goal is the procreation of a species.

To try and spin same sex desire as a normal progression of nature is incorrect. Go back a little bit in our history when we had no artificial way to care for children as we do today. How do two gay males care for an infant? Do they leave it with the mother until they can finally take over the duties with real food and not mother’s milk? Does the mother act like nursing nanny of her own child for a gay couple? Does the mother live a life of only a breeder never actually having an intimate relationship? Or does the gay couple go through life waiting for a chance to adopt parentless childern?

I fail to see the positive side of this to say this is a norm of nature, and not just an uncommon abnormality that happens in the same way that so many other abnormalities happen.

reply to post by Good Wolf


This is one aspect that has me even more curious.

As I said way earlier. I never had any sexual attraction to a female. When I was 16 there was an attempt made. The process was sickening to me so much so that I nearly vomited. This would have been my first sexual experience.

Upon becoming an adult I find that the majority of males on my mother's side of the family are gay or bisexual. These were family members I never met. Most of them also do not know each other.

The reason her side procreated was because most of them married young and acquired divorces or stayed married and simply stopped having sex with their wives. I can even track which branch on the "family tree" all the gays/bisexuals came from due to stories between them.

My own great grandmother said her husband had an eye out for women and men. Upon "coming out" my grandmother described walking into the bedroom and caught him with the neighbor.

To me, it would be an interesting case study although most are closeted.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Strange But True: Males Can Lactate!

In the 1896 compendium Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, George Gould and Walter Pyle catalogue several instances of male nursing being observed. Among them was a South American man, observed by Prussian naturalist Alexander von Humboldt, who subbed as wet nurse after his wife fell ill as well as male missionaries in Brazil that were the sole milk supply for their children because their wives had shriveled breasts.

reply to post by toochaos4u


Hmm. Your family sounds like it is prone to non-heterosexuality, much more so than is typical.

My family is the opposite. None of my ancestors were not heterosexual (at least not out). That and that all the males got married quite young had 2 or 3 kids each and that there are no stories like your one about you nan, granddad and the neighbour.

There is no evidence that anything but heterosexuality is the norm in my family (but I have no doubt that someone somewhere is not strictly hetero) and I know most of them quite well, and I can categorically say that they wouldn't likely be closeted. Our family is very accepting and loving and there is no homophobia.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

I am straight but kinky.(DL as in AB/DL)

The only friends that know about my kink are gay and they understanding and are not bothered by it.

I have been to gay bars with them and the funny part is i have picked up straight women at these gay bars.
There are a few straight ladys the hang out at gay bars with gay friends so that they are not bothered by [snip]trying to put the make on them all the time.
If your friendly and don't act like a [snip] and they see you are not bothered by there gay friend. you have a better then even chance with them.




Mod Edit - Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 30-12-2008 by elevatedone]

Never mind all.

[edit on 28/12/2008 by Good Wolf]

reply to post by ANNED


This is absolutely true. One of my straight guy friends used to go clubbing with me to pick up and meet girls. He was cool if a guy thought he looked hot. He would accept the compliment with a thank you and told them he was straight and just hanging out for the rave music. The girls know they are safe there as well because the gays would watch out for them.

People need to back off from just the homosexual behavior and look at a much more complex situation. This behavior is just one piece of a pie and people tend to see it as the whole pie. This is an abnormal behavior that is caused by a somewhat different thought process, and when you have a different thought process it doesn’t equate to just one behavior.

When you look at a sociopath who is morally challenged in many ways, it is not a choice of that person to be that way, for it just happens to be how their brain is hard wired, and it is incurable. A sociopath has a huge laundry list of behaviors that are out of the norm.

Though I’m not suggesting that homosexuals are sociopaths, but I am suggesting that their brain is hardwired differently and their homosexual behavior is just one aspect of many different behaviors caused by the difference in their brain, and as the sociopath has the ability to pass a lie detector while lying through their teeth we do not see sociopaths as just liars, but as just one aspect of their abnormality.

Since homosexuality is such a sensitive subject we tend to focus on just that one behavioral difference when we should be looking at the complete picture to explain it better.


[edit on 28-12-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by toochaos4u
In the 1896 compendium Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine, George Gould and Walter Pyle catalogue several instances of male nursing being observed. Among them was a South American man, observed by Prussian naturalist Alexander von Humboldt, who subbed as wet nurse after his wife fell ill as well as male missionaries in Brazil that were the sole milk supply for their children because their wives had shriveled breasts.

When you look in nature you can find many Anomalies. Are you suggesting that this is also a normal process in nature? Read the books title...hehe

Originally posted by meaguire

Therefore, a lifestyle is a means of forging a sense of self and to create cultural symbols that resonate with personal identity. Not all aspects of a lifestyle are entirely voluntaristic. Surrounding social and technical systems can constrain the lifestyle choices available to the individual and the symbols she/he is able to project to others and the self.[2]\
en.wikipedia.org...

Could it not be argued that gay individuals have successfully forged a sense of self by being actively homosexual in their nature, and that groups of these individuals have indeed created cultural symbols that resonate with the practices of this nature. That these themselves then provide another factor in an outcome of activity of a homosexual nature that must be included in the OP's question relating to choice. That being within a broader community where homosexual identity has its own valid resounance as an identity and style of life that may also act as a counter to previously held heterosexual norms that, from a homosexual perspective, seem involuntary but now appeal to an individual to volunteer self-inclusion due to the introduction of this valid and broadly accepted new identity and lifestyle.

Or to the point. At what point do all those that are naturally homosexual reach a tipping point in offering a valid alternative to heterosexual practice that sees choices being made amongst heterosexuals to practice sex of a homosexual nature. I think we see that quite extensively in society and the arguements for weather you where born gay or not seem to be redundant in light of that. If you have gay sex, you have gay sex, weather you choose to or weather by nature you where born that way.

a 'lifestyle' seems to be based upon culture, country, social and economic wealth. Homosexualsity exist within all cultures, countries and economic statis, yet are labelled as a 'lifestyle'.

We are seeing that lifestyle can be based around sexual practices too. Most major cities have microcosms of socially and economically influential gay communities that exert their own influence on the macro culture dominated by those who practice heterosexual sex. I think choice is becomming more involved in homosexual practices. But this is my own personal opinion.

can anyone explain the term 'lifestyle' applied to homosexuality and do people really believe homosexuality is a 'lifestyle' considering what 'lifestyle' means?

I think lifestyle is better than calling it deviant, sick, perverted or evil. Lifestyle is exactly what it is. A style of life, a homosexual style of life. With it comes the identity, symbology and its influences on society and behaviour.

#personal disclosure#, my mother has 30 years of teaching religion and theology under her belt and is a devout christian, my sister is in a same sex relationship. My best friend is doing her Phd on certain aspects within homosexual and transgender individuals. My mum loves my sister unconditionally.