NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, I didn't realize we were gravedigging a 2 year old thread. However, the conversation is still viable so: have at it.

Link back to the old discussion is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413113)

That's NOT a virtue, that's a sad, sad, sad situation.

:( Why?

Restating my opinion:

I didn't make a choice to become asexual and have no sexual attraction, so I'm not sure why others would get a choice in that when I don't have one...
So I have no idea what people are feeling when they're sexually attracted to people, they're just feeling something I'll never be able to understand. But not being able to understand what they're feeling doesn't mean I can't understand that they feel differently than I do and have some urge that I've never experienced. Ruffy told me that it feels warm. That sounds strange.

As DCD once said (I'll paraphrase):
"You think homosexuality is a choice? Try masturbating to gay porn. If you can't, my point is proven. If you can, congratulations: you're gay."

I know I personally have natural sexual desires that I did not create, I would assume most others do, but I can only speak for myself.

I don't see why the "choice" debate is part of how people view homosexuals. Are they suddenly doing something wrong if it is their choice? There's nothing wrong with being gay, no matter how you believe someone becomes gay.

I don't see why the "choice" debate is part of how people view homosexuals. Are they suddenly doing something wrong if it is their choice? There's nothing wrong with being gay, no matter how you believe someone becomes gay.

Then by the logic, wouldn't people be (at least) tolerant of other people's views, lifestyles, and choices here on NSG?

Maybe or maybe not. Natural biological instincts say for a man to seek out a woman and vise versa, maybe those that don't got the chemical process screwed up? or maybe they just like men, you never know.

:( Why?

You can live without sex, but from those of us who are sexually active we believe it is a great experience to have.

I don't think people should coerced into what they choose to do sexually or lack thereof. However I will say I am greatly annoyed by anyone who thinks they're a better person because they aren't sexually active. Likewise you aren't any better if you have sex.

You can live without sex, but from those of us who are sexually active we believe it is a great experience to have.

I don't think people should coerced into what they choose to do sexually or lack thereof. However I will say I am greatly annoyed by anyone who thinks they're a better person because they aren't sexually active. Likewise you aren't any better if you have sex.

Whenever people have some sort of hobby they love they tend to think that it is a great experience and they would be missing something without it, but then they start to think that other people are missing something without it.
So even though we don't feel like we're missing anything and that hobby doesn't appeal to us, since they're the majority they think they can treat us like we're diseased and disordered just because we don't have any interest in something they love to do.

You can live without sex, but from those of us who are sexually active we believe it is a great experience to have.

My (borderline apparently, was too young to remember) OCD disagrees. :(

And I really don't care so I have no reason to change for the sake of it.

I've states my views before, and I'll state them again. I believe it is combination of genes and environment. There is a predisposition towards it, but environmental factors effect the final outcome.

In a sense, you choose how to live your life, whether you follow your natural instincts or not. Then again, if a person actively represses their attractive feelings due to them being for members of the same sex, are they really choosing or being coerced into it by an oppressive society? People want to fit in and be 'normal'. Homophobia still exists throughout society and, even if it is in the form of jokes, they can still be alienating.

I don't see why the "choice" debate is part of how people view homosexuals. Are they suddenly doing something wrong if it is their choice? There's nothing wrong with being gay, no matter how you believe someone becomes gay.

Indeed. If one doesn't desire gay sex, don't have it. If one does desire it - where is the harm in having it with a willing partner ? The cause of the desire is irrelevant.

It only becomes a problem when your orientation is towards relationships that would be damaging to your partner. Like e.g. paedophiles.

Sex is, sexuality isn't.

You can live without sex, but from those of us who are sexually active we believe it is a great experience to have.

I don't think people should coerced into what they choose to do sexually or lack thereof. However I will say I am greatly annoyed by anyone who thinks they're a better person because they aren't sexually active. Likewise you aren't any better if you have sex.

I believe there are quite a few studies out there highligting the phsical and medical benefit of having an active, happy sex life...

I believe there are quite a few studies out there highligting the phsical and medical benefit of having an active, happy sex life...

I didn't really mean "healthier". I'm saying, IMHO, you can be sexually active or not sexual at all and I don't think you score morality points either way.

I'd say there is no choice, if it does happen to come down to the life you have had then its far beyond your own control and such

plus I kick ass at map orientation but in the bedroom its a case of blindly wondering around refusing to ask for directions :p

Sexual Orientation is not a choice, this will range from homosexuality to anything else such as zoophilia, pedophilia, necrophilia, etc. Sexual Behavior however is definitely a choice.

Of course do keep in mind that having he desire to do something doesn't make it culturally alright. It's like asking, why are eating dogs so wrong while eating pigs are completely accepted. I think ultimately the whole argument of rather a behavior is right or wrong cannot be argue as facts, but only in a cultural context.

I believe there are quite a few studies out there highligting the phsical and medical benefit of having an active, happy sex life...

That's not any reason to have it if you have no other reason and it would make you miserable...

Sexuality is part of one's psychological make-up...their psyche, basically. You cannot willfully alter your psyche...it alters through experiences. Sexuality, however, very rarely--if ever--could actually change through some sort of traumatic experience or some other type of experience. While one could choose to go against their psyche, it would be very difficult.

Therefore, sexuality is a trait that one is born with, and the orientation is decided at that point. Homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality...none of these are choices. They are, in essence, decided before we could ever form a choice.

Logically it does not make sense that people would choose to be homosexual in the current viewpoint of the world. Perhaps in Ancient Greece, but nowhere else was homosexuality accepted. Everywhere homosexuals face persecution and horridly unfair treatment. Why would someone choose that? Why would, say, a man in Egypt or Iran choose to be homosexual? You would be executed for being so there! It makes absolutely no sense.

Furthermore, even if it was somehow a choice, it is completely irrelevant. Homosexuals do not somehow harm society or other people by being with each other. If homosexuals are happy that way, so be it. Why should others interfere and persecute them for it? What would make the "choice" wrong?

Homosexuals ought to be treated fairly and equally, both under the law and in society, much like everyone else.

I won't post the picture (seeing as how that's a no-no now), but aw geez, not this shit again.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but is anyone really gonna change anyone else's opinion on this? Especially on the third thread this week?

I won't post the picture (seeing as how that's a no-no now), but aw geez, not this shit again.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but is anyone really gonna change anyone else's opinion on this? Especially on the third thread this week?

Maybe people who post on forums like this are not intending to change the world to begin with, but just as a place to voice their opinion.

I won't post the picture (seeing as how that's a no-no now), but aw geez, not this shit again.

I don't mean to be dismissive, but is anyone really gonna change anyone else's opinion on this? Especially on the third thread this week?

Well, Melon, it's the third thread this week because Kat didn't realize the other thread was a two years old gravedigging operation. Don't know why she didn't just let it keep going instead, but meh.

That's not any reason to have it if you have no other reason and it would make you miserable...

Look, Chandi, we GET it, okay? You no likey teh secks. I swear to you that neither I nor anyone else is going out of our way to make YOU feel uncomfortable about being asexual. Nobody's trying to take away your rights, nobody's trying to make you feel inferior (unless they're being patently obvious about it), and nobody with a speck of intellect thinks less of you because of how you are. But neither do we, nor should we, think any more.

Now I know that some clever wag will come in and replace the word "asexual" with "homosexual" or "black" or "insert only marginally clever faux-reversal here" in my third sentence up there, and if that makes you feel smugly superior, you go right ahead. But it's getting old. Someone's being asexual does not preclude those who are not from talking about what they like and what they do. Such talk is NOT aimed at ostracizing the asexual.

When a thread about baseball comes up, I've learned to stay out of them instead of posting "baseball is more boring than watching flies fuck", because it comes off as unnecessary and petulant.

[/rant]

Maybe people who post on forums like this are not intending to change the world to begin with, but just as a place to voice their opinion.

Three times in a week? I -- aw, skip it.

Fine.

NO, IT ISN'T A CHOICE, and there's NO CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT CAN CONVINCE ME THAT IT IS, but rhetoric. And it's rhetoric I've heard more times than I ever thought possible. And it's the rhetoric of the scared, the uninformed, the bigoted and the inherently divisive.

There. Opinion enough?

Well, Melon, it's the third thread this week because Kat didn't realize the other thread was a two years old gravedigging operation. Don't know why she didn't just let it keep going instead, but meh.

"Melon?" Sorry, but I can't get past that.

Yes I can. Gravedigging? That explains it.

"Melon?"

Look, Chandi, we GET it, okay? You no likey teh secks. I swear to you that neither I nor anyone else is going out of our way to make YOU feel uncomfortable about being asexual. Nobody's trying to take away your rights, nobody's trying to make you feel inferior (unless they're being patently obvious about it), and nobody with a speck of intellect thinks less of you because of how you are. But neither do we, nor should we, think any more.

Now I know that some clever wag will come in and replace the word "asexual" with "homosexual" or "black" or "insert only marginally clever faux-reversal here" in my third sentence up there, and if that makes you feel smugly superior, you go right ahead. But it's getting old. Someone's being asexual does not preclude those who are not from talking about what they like and what they do. Such talk is NOT aimed at ostracizing the asexual.

When a thread about baseball comes up, I've learned to stay out of them instead of posting "baseball is more boring than watching flies fuck", because it comes off as unnecessary and petulant.

[/rant]


Wow, people can split?

Wow, people can split?

Yup.

Mitosis, YOURtosis. EVERYone.

"Melon?" Sorry, but I can't get past that.

Yes I can. Gravedigging? That explains it.

"Melon?"
I've been coming up with random nicknames for people...usually I shorten their name and add a y--so, say, Gravlen becomes Gravy, Jocabia Joccy, and so on---but sometimes I change things up and take a part of the name then switch out a letter. That makes gelon turn into melon. I considered Intangible Melon but that was too long.

...

Yes I'm weird.

Look, Chandi, we GET it, okay? You no likey teh secks. I swear to you that neither I nor anyone else is going out of our way to make YOU feel uncomfortable about being asexual. Nobody's trying to take away your rights, nobody's trying to make you feel inferior (unless they're being patently obvious about it), and nobody with a speck of intellect thinks less of you because of how you are. But neither do we, nor should we, think any more.

Now I know that some clever wag will come in and replace the word "asexual" with "homosexual" or "black" or "insert only marginally clever faux-reversal here" in my third sentence up there, and if that makes you feel smugly superior, you go right ahead. But it's getting old. Someone's being asexual does not preclude those who are not from talking about what they like and what they do. Such talk is NOT aimed at ostracizing the asexual.

When a thread about baseball comes up, I've learned to stay out of them instead of posting "baseball is more boring than watching flies fuck", because it comes off as unnecessary and petulant.

[/rant]

People were trying to ostracize me in the other thread, when they doubted that asexuality existed even after hearing about it from me.

This isn't a thread about sex, though. It's a thread about sexual orientation, and that's my sexual orientation. And the reason I responded like that was because one person was saying that sexual people tend to think that sex is something that people are missing out on if they aren't having it, which it's true that sexual people think that, but then that people aren't any better off whether they have it or not. But then someone responded to that saying that it makes you healthier or something to have sex, which would sound like it's trying to say that we are worse off if we aren't having sex. I'm pointing out that that's not true...

Wow, people can split?

See my point about people not knowing about it? :rolleyes:

I've been coming up with random nicknames for people...usually I shorten their name and add a y--so, say, Gravlen becomes Gravy, Jocabia Joccy, and so on---but sometimes I change things up and take a part of the name then switch out a letter. That makes gelon turn into melon. I considered Intangible Melon but that was too long.

...

Yes I'm weird.

Far from it. You've just hit on your own variation of Cockney rhyming slang. And a nice one, too. "Melon" -- I like it.

Far from it. You've just hit on your own variation of Cockney rhyming slang. And a nice one, too. "Melon" -- I like it.

Oh good. A lovely resolution!

And Chandy's right. It's a thread about all sexual orientations, not just one, and Chandy has faced her own form of persecution, so she will want to talk about it.

People were trying to ostracize me in the other thread, when they doubted that asexuality existed even after hearing about it from me.

This isn't a thread about sex, though. It's a thread about sexual orientation, and that's my sexual orientation. And the reason I responded like that was because one person was saying that sexual people tend to think that sex is something that people are missing out on if they aren't having it, which it's true that sexual people think that, but then that people aren't any better off whether they have it or not. But then someone responded to that saying that it makes you healthier or something to have sex, which would sound like it's trying to say that we are worse off if we aren't having sex. I'm pointing out that that's not true...

Over and over again. Very well, that's your cross to bear. I know you're telling the truth and I told you as much about two months or so ago the last time this debacle flared up. If you're interested in a suggestion, and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't, coming back at those determined to make asses of themselves at your expense is grossly ineffective if done in a hurt, passive and plaintive voice. I'm not seggestion you get all Fass on them, but gin up a backbone and give 'em what for. And then -- and here's the secret to sanity -- ignore them.

Once you've let it be known that you won't be marginalized or messed with, you don't need to say another word. Your calm but passionate confidence will be the last respectable thing the conversation hears on the issue while the asses continue to make themselves look worse and worse with their usual brand of ignorant shit. Let 'em know, then let it go.

See my point about people not knowing about it? :rolleyes:

I believe the gentleman in question was being sarcastic. And if he wasn't, ignornace is no crime. Ignorance in the face of a legitimate explanation? That's the definition of stupidity. And why would you waste a moment worrying about what someone like that thinks?

People were trying to ostracize me in the other thread, when they doubted that asexuality existed even after hearing about it from me.

This isn't a thread about sex, though. It's a thread about sexual orientation, and that's my sexual orientation. And the reason I responded like that was because one person was saying that sexual people tend to think that sex is something that people are missing out on if they aren't having it, which it's true that sexual people think that, but then that people aren't any better off whether they have it or not. But then someone responded to that saying that it makes you healthier or something to have sex, which would sound like it's trying to say that we are worse off if we aren't having sex. I'm pointing out that that's not true...


I was simply stating facts : http://health.ivillage.com/sexualhealth/sxarousal/0,,8sc1hj71,00.html

And why would you waste a moment worrying about what someone like that thinks?

I suspect Chandy's problem is not that one bigot is ignorant, but that most people tend to be--which is definitely true--and that she wants everyone to know and understand. Yes, it's her cross to bear, but it means a lot to her, Melon, and you can't fault her for that.

Is sexual orientation a choice?

Nope, not a choice.


But even if it was(which it isn't), nobody would be justified in questioning that choice or feel superior or contemptuous about it, any more than one might feel superior or contemptuous about one's favorite color or food.

Over and over again. Very well, that's your cross to bear. I know you're telling the truth and I told you as much about two months or so ago the last time this debacle flared up. If you're interested in a suggestion, and I wouldn't blame you if you weren't, coming back at those determined to make asses of themselves at your expense is grossly ineffective if done in a hurt, passive and plaintive voice. I'm not seggestion you get all Fass on them, but gin up a backbone and give 'em what for. And then -- and here's the secret to sanity -- ignore them.

Once you've let it be known that you won't be marginalized or messed with, you don't need to say another word. Your calm but passionate confidence will be the last respectable thing the conversation hears on the issue while the asses continue to make themselves look worse and worse with their usual brand of ignorant shit. Let 'em know, then let it go.


Ah. That's difficult for me to do.


I believe the gentleman in question was being sarcastic. And if he wasn't, ignornace is no crime. Ignorance in the face of a legitimate explanation? That's the definition of stupidity. And why would you waste a moment worrying about what someone like that thinks?

I don't know. It just gets annoying when it happens over and over again.

And if he's actually being sarcastic, I may have a better answer.

Wow, people can split?

Yes. It's just one part of the asexual community's plan for world domination.
*dials number* They're on to our plan! o.o

Since asexuals are unencumbered by having or thinking about sex, they currently plan on achieving “A” rights by next week and complete world domination by December.

I was simply stating facts : http://health.ivillage.com/sexualhealth/sxarousal/0,,8sc1hj71,00.html

That sounds like it would be true for people who would actually enjoy sex then. It probably wouldn't apply for people who don't want to have sex...

Smunkee's big gay theory *

There are 3 types of gay people

1. gay people, who are really biologically gay

2. gay people who had some sort of trauma and are now gay

3. trendy gay people, who aren't really biologically or psychologically gay but do gay things because they want to, or want to shock people or fit in with their group (think highschool lesbians)

here's the deal, I don't care. If you chose it or you didn't choose it or it chose you..........don't care. Whatever you do in your free time that isn't hurting anyone isn't any of my business. I don't give a flip why you do it. It's none of my business. (and also none of the government's business.)
















*not to be confused with a scientific theory because this is totally non-scientific

I suspect Chandy's problem is not that one bigot is ignorant, but that most people tend to be--which is definitely true--and that she wants everyone to know and understand. Yes, it's her cross to bear, but it means a lot to her, Melon, and you can't fault her for that.

Nope, you're right. I can't. However, I can fault her for the following:

Ah. That's difficult for me to do.

I don't know. It just gets annoying when it happens over and over again.

It needs to start getting easier, or all you'll ever do is whine and be annoyed. That's no kind of life for a sane person to want to live. You're not the first nailhead to stand out of the wooden floor, so lose the "woe is me" and get on to more productive responses...like this one:

And if he's actually being sarcastic, I may have a better answer.

Yes. It's just one part of the asexual community's plan for world domination.
*dials number* They're on to our plan! o.o

NOW you're talkin'. ;)

Fair enough, then.

NOW you're talkin'. ;)

YAY!

I just don't like feeling like I'm being mean to people.

That sounds like it would be true for people who would actually enjoy sex then. It probably wouldn't apply for people who don't want to have sex...

Sex you don't enjoy is pointless. I was talking about good sex, the kind that leads to great orgasms and makes you smile like a cheshire cat for the rest of the day. And I think so does the article.

Sex you don't enjoy is pointless. I was talking about good sex, the kind that leads to great orgasms and makes you smile like a cheshire cat for the rest of the day. And I think so does the article.

That kind of sex actually exists?

That kind of sex actually exists?

Oh, yes. Yes it does. It takes comsideration and communication along with attraction, so it can be rare, but holy Hannah, is it divine.

Sex you don't enjoy is pointless. I was talking about good sex, the kind that leads to great orgasms and makes you smile like a cheshire cat for the rest of the day. And I think so does the article.

Ok. Then it just doesn't apply for most asexuals. I never said it's bad for sexuals who want to have sex and enjoy it...

YAY!

I just don't like feeling like I'm being mean to people.

You're not if they're playing the jackass card. Like I said, inform them, then ignore them if they want to be childish about it.

That kind of sex actually exists?

*nods* :D

Trust me.

Oh, yes. Yes it does. It takes comsideration and communication along with attraction, so it can be rare, but holy Hannah, is it divine.

*nods* :D

Trust me.

I'll have to take your word for it for now.

You're not if they're playing the jackass card. Like I said, inform them, then ignore them if they want to be childish about it.

It would still feel like I'm being mean...

I'll have to take your word for it for now.

Patience is not just a virtue, it's a necessity. With the right person and the right level of communication, it's far more likely than not.

I'll have to take your word for it for now.

Take my word too, then. It does, and it is glorious. :D

It would still feel like I'm being mean...

Okay, I'm not going down this road with you again. Mean is as mean does, and if all you're doing is taking the piss out of someone who is being DELIBERATELY and WITHOUT PROVOCATION an asshole to you, you're NOT being mean. I promise you. Rolling over and shelling up like an armadillo is the surest way to increase the level and amount of idiotic abuse from those keen on being idiotic and abusive.

Okay, I'm not going down this road with you again. Mean is as mean does, and if all you're doing is taking the piss out of someone who is being DELIBERATELY and WITHOUT PROVOCATION an asshole to you, you're NOT being mean. I promise you. Rolling over and shelling up like an armadillo is the surest way to increase the level and amount of idiotic abuse from those keen on being idiotic and abusive.

Ok. Thanks for the advice. I'm just not sure how to tell if they're deliberately being mean to me.

Okay, I'm not going down this road with you again. Mean is as mean does, and if all you're doing is taking the piss out of someone who is being DELIBERATELY and WITHOUT PROVOCATION an asshole to you, you're NOT being mean. I promise you. Rolling over and shelling up like an armadillo is the surest way to increase the level and amount of idiotic abuse from those keen on being idiotic and abusive.

He's right, Chandy. There's a significant difference between being intentionally rude and defending yourself. You would be defending yourself, so do it.

I won't post the picture (seeing as how that's a no-no now), but aw geez, not this shit again.

When did that happen?



I don't see why the "choice" debate is part of how people view homosexuals. Are they suddenly doing something wrong if it is their choice? There's nothing wrong with being gay, no matter how you believe someone becomes gay.





But even if it was(which it isn't), nobody would be justified in questioning that choice or feel superior or contemptuous about it, any more than one might feel superior or contemptuous about one's favorite color or food.


here's the deal, I don't care. If you chose it or you didn't choose it or it chose you..........don't care. Whatever you do in your free time that isn't hurting anyone isn't any of my business. I don't give a flip why you do it. It's none of my business. (and also none of the government's business.)

Pretty much this. This is a read herring that we've kind of allowed ourselves to wander down. As a scientific curiosity, to better understand how the brain works or whatever-yes, it's a good question in the same way that we study the origin of any other of our impulses or desires.

But that's a question for science, and the answer means fuck all to anything else. Choice or not, doesn't fucking matter.

It doesn't matter if it's a choice. Worshipping a god is a choice. We don't discriminate on that, do we?

Considering what people are willing to do for their religion, I think letting people decide who they boink is little cause for getting bent out of shape. Don't you?

If it's genetic, then it's no more a disorder than hazel eyes are, or blood type AB. We don't fuck with their lives, do we?

Other than scientific curiosity, I don't see why homosexuality's origins should have any effect on policy whatsoever.

It doesn't matter if it's a choice. Worshipping a god is a choice. We don't discriminate on that, do we?

Considering what people are willing to do for their religion, I think letting people decide who they boink is little cause for getting bent out of shape. Don't you?

If it's genetic, then it's no more a disorder than hazel eyes are, or blood type AB. We don't fuck with their lives, do we?

Other than scientific curiosity, I don't see why homosexuality's origins should have any effect on policy whatsoever.

Quality.

Sex is, sexuality isn't.

what she said.

or blood type AB. We don't fuck with their lives, do we?



Actually I do. blood type AB? where do you people get off? Stop being a fence sitter. Either you're A or you're B. You can't have it both ways damnit!
[/rant]

Smunkee's big straight theory *

There are 3 types of straight people

1. straight people, who are really biologically straight

2. straight people who had some sort of trauma and are now straight

3. trendy straight people, who aren't really biologically or psychologically straight but do straight things because they want to, or want to shock people or fit in with their group (think highschool het couples)Now that just sounds silly.

Joke option.

Now that just sounds silly.

I've actually talked to someone who would qualify as number 2 under your alteration (unless my memory is going off again), and number three would probably cover "in the closet" as well, so it doesn't sound that silly to me.

Ok, I didn't realize we were gravedigging a 2 year old thread. However, the conversation is still viable so: have at it.

Link back to the old discussion is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413113)

We dont know for sure.

Wiki:


Theories on homosexuality

The American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, "Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences."[73] The American Psychological Association has stated that "there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people". However, it states that for most people, sexual orientation is determined at an early age.[74]

The degree to which sexual orientation is determined by genetic or other prenatal factors plays a role in political and social debates about homosexuality, and also raises fears about genetic profiling and prenatal testing.[75]

Biological explanations

Main article: Biology and sexual orientation

In 1993, Dean Hamer found the genetic marker Xq28 on the X chromosome. Hamer's study found a link between the Xq28 marker and male homosexuality,[76] but the original study's results have been disputed.[77] Several mutations have been identified in flies, such as changes in the fruitless gene, cause male flies to court and attempt to mate with other males; however, when a modified male fruit fly is isolated with only female fruit flies, then he will attempt to mate with them.[78]

Twin studies give indications that male homosexuality is genetically mediated. One common type of twin study compares the monozygotic (or identical) twins of people possessing a particular trait to the dizygotic (non-identical, or fraternal) twins of people possessing the trait. Bailey and Pillard (1991) in a study of gay twins found that 52% of monozygotic brothers and 22% of the dizygotic twins were concordant for homosexuality.[79] Bailey, Dunne and Martin (2000) used the Australian twin registry to obtain a sample of 4,901 twins.[80]

Prenatal hormonal theory

Main article: Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation

Simon LeVay explains the basics of this theory:

In experimental animals it’s been well established that the sexual differentiation of the body and brain results primarily from the influence of sex hormones secreted by the testes or ovaries (Arnold 2002). Males have high levels of testosterone in fetal life (after functional development of the testes) and around the time of birth, as well as at and after puberty. Females have low levels of all sex hormones in fetal life, and high levels of estrogens and progestagens starting at puberty. High prenatal testosterone levels organize the brain in a male-specific fashion; low levels testosterone permits it to organize in a female-specific fashion. Hormones at puberty activate the circuits laid down in prenatal life but do not fundamentally change them. Thus, the range of sexual behaviors that adult animals can show is determined in large part by their prenatal/perinatal hormone exposure—manipulating these hormone levels can lead to atypical sex behavior or preference for same-sex sex partners as well as a range of other gender-atypical characteristics.[81]

Physiological differences in gay men and lesbians

Recent studies have found notable differences between the physiology of gay people and straight people. There is evidence that:

* The average size of the INAH-3 in the brains of gay men is approximately the same size as INAH 3 in women, which is significantly smaller, and the cells more densely packed, than in heterosexual men's brains.[81]
* The anterior commissure is larger in women than men, and larger in gay men than in straight men.[82]
* Gay men's brains respond differently to fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.[83]
* The functioning of the inner ear and the central auditory system in lesbians and bisexual women are more like the functional properties found in men than in straight women (the researchers argued this finding was consistent with the prenatal hormonal theory of sexual orientation.[84]
* The startle response (eyeblink following a loud sound) is similarly masculinized in lesbians and bisexual women.[85]
* Three regions of the brain (medial prefrontal cortex, left hippocampus, and right amygdala) are more active in gay men than straight men when exposed to sexually arousing material.[86]
* Gay and straight people emit different armpit odors.[87]
* Gay and straight people's brains respond differently to two human sex pheromones (AND, found in male armpit secretions, and EST, found in female urine).[88][89][90]
* Gay men have, on an average, slightly longer and thicker penises than straight men.[91]
* Finger length ratios between the index and ring fingers may be different between straight and lesbian women.[92][93][84][94][95][96]

Cognitive differences in gay men and lesbians

Likewise, recent studies have found notable differences between the cognitive features of gay people and straight people. There is evidence that:

* Gay men and lesbians are significantly more likely to be left-handed or ambidextrous than straight men and women;[97][98][99] Simon LeVay argues that because "[h]and preference is observable before birth[100]... [t]he observation of increased non-right-handness in gay people is therefore consistent with the idea that sexual orientation is influenced by prenatal processes."[81]
* Gay men and lesbians are more verbally fluent than heterosexuals of the same gender[101][102] (but two studies did not find this result[103][104]).
* Gay men are better than straight men at object location memory (no difference was found between lesbians and straight women).[105]

Fraternal birth order

Main article: Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation

There is evidence from numerous studies that gay men tend to have more older brothers than do straight men.[106] One reported that each older brother increases the odds of being gay by 33%. [107]

To explain this finding, it has been proposed that male fetuses provoke a maternal immune reaction that becomes stronger with each successive male fetus.[106] Male fetuses produce H-Y antigens which are "almost certainly" involved in the sexual differentiation of vertebrates.[106] It is this antigen which maternal H-Y antibodies are proposed to both react to and 'remember.' Successive male fetuses are then attacked by H-Y antibodies which somehow decrease the ability of H-Y antigens to perform their usual function in brain masculinization. This is now known as the fraternal birth order effect. There is a link to homosexuality only if the older brothers were biologically related and even when they were not raised together.[citation needed] Interestingly, this relation seems to hold only for right-handed males.[108] There has been no observed equivalent for women.

Non-biological explanations

Environment

There is some evidence that gay men report having had less loving and more rejecting fathers, and closer relationships with their mothers, than straight men.[109] Whether this phenomenon is a cause of homosexuality, or whether parents behave this way in response to gender-variant traits in a child, is unclear.[110][111]

One researcher's Exotic Becomes Erotic theory theorizes that some children will prefer activities that are typical of the other sex and that this will make a gender-conforming child feel different from opposite-sex children, while gender-nonconforming children will feel different from children of their own sex, which may evoke physiological arousal when the child is near members of the sex which it considers as being "different", which will later be transformed into sexual arousal.

Innate bisexuality

Main article: Innate bisexuality
Further information: Kinsey Reports, Latent homosexuality

Innate bisexuality (or predisposition to bisexuality) is a term introduced by Sigmund Freud (based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess) that expounds that all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development (which includes both external and internal factors) become monosexual, while the bisexuality remains in a latent state.

Alfred Kinsey's studies, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male[29] and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female[112], found that the majority of humans have had homosexual experiences or sensations and are bisexual. The Kinsey Reports found that approximately four percent of adult Americans were predominantly gay or lesbian for their entire lives, and approximately 10 percent were predominantly gay or lesbian for some portion of their lives.[113]

Some studies have disputed Kinsey's methodology and have suggested that these reports overstated the occurrence of bisexuality and homosexuality in human populations. "His figures were undermined when it was revealed that he had disproportionately interviewed homosexuals and prisoners (many sex offenders)."[114][115]

Malleability of homosexuality

In 1985, Fritz Klein argued that sexual orientation may change over time and is composed of various elements, both sexual and non-sexual.[116] A psychologist from the University of Utah measured changes in sexual attractions among white, highly educated lesbians and bisexual women over a two-year period and found that changes in sexual attraction were generally small (more so in lesbians), but that their self-identification of their sexualities and their sexual behavior were more variable.[117]

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that homosexuality "is not changeable", and that attempts at eliminating same-sex attractions are not effective and are potentially harmful.[74] More generally, the APA states, "psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed",[74] and in 2001 United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report maintaining that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".[118]

Yes. All forms of sexuality (normal sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, and any perverted fantasy) is a choice. Even being totally asexual is a choice.

Yes. All forms of sexuality (normal sex, homosexuality, pedophilia, and any perverted fantasy) is a choice. Even being totally asexual is a choice.

So you can choose to be aroused by legobricks ?

So you can choose to be aroused by legobricks ?

Don't judge the legobrisexuals! They're people too! ;)

The answer to this question is not a simple yes or no.

There is a certain degree of choice to sexual orientation. At the same time there is a certain degree of lack of choice. For a variety of reasons, social, political, religious, one might make a choice to practice a certain sexuality and live quite happily like that. Sometimes making that choice might be impossible due to an irresistable urge towards one sexuality.

No. Sexual behavior is, but sexual orientation isn't sexual behavior.

I've actually talked to someone who would qualify as number 2 under your alteration (unless my memory is going off again), and number three would probably cover "in the closet" as well, so it doesn't sound that silly to me.

Likewise.

I suspect that there are quite a few biologically gay folks out there who were essentially traumatized by repeated brainwashing or by more direct means into becoming straight.

I think Smunkee's model could be improved upon, certainly, but not that it's simply ridiculous.

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Not my own work...

Actually I do. blood type AB? where do you people get off? Stop being a fence sitter. Either you're A or you're B. You can't have it both ways damnit!
[/rant]

then there are those O bastards. :p

Actually I do. blood type AB? where do you people get off? Stop being a fence sitter. Either you're A or you're B. You can't have it both ways damnit!
[/rant]

:eek::(

Likewise.

I suspect that there are quite a few biologically gay folks out there who were essentially traumatized by repeated brainwashing or by more direct means into becoming straight. Into behaving straight perhaps...but into suddenly actually only being attracted to the opposite sex? You're right. It's not ridiculous. It's delusional.

So you can choose to be aroused by legobricks ?

I'm sure someone could be psychologically conditioned to be turned on by lego bricks, yes. It would take some effort but it's possible (see: Pavlov experiments).

Human Sexuality isn't a choice, and even if it was it isn't a concious choice.

I mean have you ever gone:

"I think i'll be staight on Tuesday, bi on Wednesday, and then on Thursday I'll try Homosexuality..."

Of course sexual orientation isn't a choice. Choosing to commit a homosexual act is....

:( Why?

Basically, if we are to believe the poster that referred to, not only does he not react to any kind of urges, he literally went about destroying them entirely, and we are to believe that this is a healthy circumstance?

Basically giving yourself aversion therapy to destroy a part of your self is not much different, in my book, than those individuals who intentionally maim themselves to get doctors to amputate their limbs.

If you are just naturally without the drive to begin with, that's something different.

Into behaving straight perhaps...but into suddenly actually only being attracted to the opposite sex? You're right. It's not ridiculous. It's delusional.

Physically attracted? No. They'd still be physically attracted to members of the same sex. Psychologically attracted? Yes, since that's what they think they're supposed to be attracted to.

Physically attracted? No. They'd still be physically attracted to members of the same sex. Psychologically attracted? Yes, since that's what they think they're supposed to be attracted to.

Boy, that's effective!

"Oh look, hot woman! My mind says I should want her! Why is my penis only hardening when I look at her husband? DAMN YOU SALAZAR!!!!!!!!!!!!"

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Not my own work...

I like you. :)

Boy, that's effective!

It is at pretty much destroying a person, assuming the process by which they got to that point didn't destroy them.

Look, Chandi, we GET it, okay? You no likey teh secks. I swear to you that neither I nor anyone else is going out of our way to make YOU feel uncomfortable about being asexual. Nobody's trying to take away your rights, nobody's trying to make you feel inferior (unless they're being patently obvious about it), and nobody with a speck of intellect thinks less of you because of how you are. But neither do we, nor should we, think any more.

Now I know that some clever wag will come in and replace the word "asexual" with "homosexual" or "black" or "insert only marginally clever faux-reversal here" in my third sentence up there, and if that makes you feel smugly superior, you go right ahead. But it's getting old. Someone's being asexual does not preclude those who are not from talking about what they like and what they do. Such talk is NOT aimed at ostracizing the asexual.

When a thread about baseball comes up, I've learned to stay out of them instead of posting "baseball is more boring than watching flies fuck", because it comes off as unnecessary and petulant.

[/rant]

Seriously, get over it. People do doubt that asexuality exist and they get patronising about it. "Oh your just 17 (are you 18 now?) you don't know anything about love, just wait a couple of years. Many other people jump in on specific types of threads to insert their opinion, you notice Chandy cause she's different. She just inserted her opinion on about sexuality and not sex and she added to the conversation, you did not. Leave her alone.

then there are those O bastards. :p

yeah, don't even get me started on them. thinking they're all special just because they can give blood to anyone. bunch of show offs:p

yeah, don't even get me started on them. thinking they're all special just because they can give blood to anyone. bunch of show offs:p

Yeah, but they can't receive it from anyone but other Os. That'll learn 'em.

Nay. Anyone can make the conscious decision to have sex or not, but it's impossible to choose what you are or are not attracted to.

(are you 18 now?)

Not yet. My birthday is in January. :)