Nature vs Nurture - Born gay or turned gay?

[fredv3b]

Just because it isn't a choice doesn't necessarily mean we are born gay. I wasn't born an English speaker but neither did I choose it.

[Samsonic91]

If one isn't born gay, then it must be a choice. Gay is not the same thing as an adopted trait, like language.

[Sil]

Sil,

In one sense we are not born gay. In order to be gay or straight you have to have romantic and sexual attractions. We become gay (or straight) when are testicles kick into action. The question is, is our future sexual orientation determined before birth?

Given the indoctrination into heterosexuality we all receive through childhood and the roller-coaster of emotions testosterone kicks off it is hardly surprising that many take some time to realise our true sexual orientation. This is not lying to ourselves or denial, that comes next.

Do you, with the benefit of hindsight, believe that you were truly straight before you reached your turning point? Only if you were straight could you be turned gay.

P.S. Don't knock being middle class ;o)

You've given me some food for thought it's really hard to say because (being frank) I did get excited around women, dated them, liked straight porn. I did briefly at one point in my early teens feel like a 100% straight man; not a bloke or anything as macho and ridiculous, I was always arty and weird. Just not attracted to guys because I hadn't had that 'trigger' from my friend. I suppose by extension that means I COULD have been born that way unknowingly.

I think they call this point sexual malleability, during the formative years.

It was only later after I'd been in love with a guy that I got all of the confusion, which led me to believe I was turned rather than born. I could be wrong, it's difficult to say without scientific proof. I'm also open to the idea that both versions are possible, where some are more predisposed towards same-sex attraction than others.

Oh, and the middle class thing - I live up north so I'm required to feel guilt over it as part of my living agreement

[marshlander]

If one isn't born gay, then it must be a choice. Gay is not the same thing as an adopted trait, like language.

Choice is not the only alternative to being born with certain characteristics.

[fredv3b]

Glad to give you food for thought.

Oh, and the middle class thing - I live up north so I'm required to feel guilt over it as part of my living agreement

I live up north too, luckily, I seem to have escaped this requirement for guilt.

[Student]

Thank you fenris, lol. What an honour to have such Royalty bow to a servant like me!!

Oh Student, you are very comical, lol. So it's okay to Luuv, your Coffee Pot?

Well Umm, I can see why so many people believe that the very strong nurturing component of life is so effective. We are ALL, susceptible to being conditioned, I know; that is how some of us become racist, indoctrinated into a particular Religion, or intolerable to certain social values. But can one truly be conditioned to sexuality? A Pedophile, may stand behind the argument of conditioning, and he may have a valid argument, but it is very flawed! As it would set the precedent that ALL pedophiles were conditioned. Thus my stance with the biological aspect that we are born in our sexuality. Tell me, can you pick up the conditioning to have sex with dead bodies? There is an impossibility, as we (at least most of us) are never near the dead for more than several hours. And so goes for the other choices of sexuality. So I am stubbornly sticking to biology as the sole means of why we have a particular sexual proclivity!

I totally agree with you in the consent department, and I am not condoning the desecration of children, animals, or anyone that is not of the intellectual capacity to understand and permit sex. Here, only, is the talk of Nature vs. Nurture, and I solely stuck to the dynamics of human sexuality, not of the consent, excuse, or perhaps the absurdity of an attraction to a frigidaire!! I merely wanted a focus on ALL of the dynamics of human sexual choices, before we can actually sit down to pick apart the homosexual, or bisexual subdivision. We should examine ALL, don't you think?

Sil, Can I convince you otherwise? I seriously, have a problem with you thinking that you were turned gay? This can cause you great grief if you are not careful!!

Pukkap, read my rebuttal,..lol. And while these Christians WANT, Christianity to be a choice, their desire is of no consequence to me, or the rest of the homosexual community. I refuse to feel badly for loving men.

I don't think you're thinking broadly enough about how somebody's sexuality can be determined. For one thing, you mention conditioning, as you put it, with the case of necrophiles. This person doesn't have to have spent time with dead people to find the idea of intimacy with a dead person appealing. In fact they might try it and find they don't like it (too cold, I'd imagine...) but they might find that it does live up to their expectations. It's about how the mind deals with ideas it is presented with, I think in some cases. I'm not saying that some people are presented with the idea of shagging dead people and then consciously process how to feel about it, but I bet there's lots of contributing subconscious factors throughout their life which lead them to such an attraction. There's a lot of appeal to some people in certain fetishes, simply because of the taboo which surrounds it.

But then, I think we're also missing the point that sexuality probably isn't caused by exactly the same process in each individual and I think it's a hell of a lot more fluid than society will have you believe. Now, don't get me wrong, I've never seen the appeal in ladyparts, I just think that society is eager to put us all into neat boxes to make themselves feel more comfortable and know where they stand. If they feel like they can define you, it's a bit of security, isn't it? People like certainty. Labels can also give us security in some ways too. I think that Sil was perhaps misunderstood, for example with what he said, which you seemed to interpret as 'born straight' and 'turned gay' and I don't think that's quite right. I think we are all born in some sense a blank canvas, but then I may have a much greater genetic propensity than others to being gay, but I don't think it was set in stone, it's just that things panned out this way. I don't think I in any way chose to be gay, I just think that, other things influenced my sexuality and shaped me to be the person that I am.

I would draw a parallel to fetishes again. Our sexuality isn't just confined to the gender we prefer. It also includes what we like doing and who in particular we like. This is unique to everyone. Society may tell you that the man in the gym is the best-looking guy around, but this doesn't make it right. You may agree, but that doesn't mean every gay man will think the same way. Your life experiences will have an influence on your personal desires. I don't think I was born with an inbuilt attraction for middle-aged guys for example, but here I am today. Who knows what's caused it? I just don't think it was innate.

[Aaycle]

I don't think you're thinking broadly enough about how somebody's sexuality can be determined. For one thing, you mention conditioning, as you put it, with the case of necrophiles. This person doesn't have to have spent time with dead people to find the idea of intimacy with a dead person appealing. In fact they might try it and find they don't like it (too cold, I'd imagine...) but they might find that it does live up to their expectations. It's about how the mind deals with ideas it is presented with, I think in some cases. I'm not saying that some people are presented with the idea of shagging dead people and then consciously process how to feel about it, but I bet there's lots of contributing subconscious factors throughout their life which lead them to such an attraction. There's a lot of appeal to some people in certain fetishes, simply because of the taboo which surrounds it.

Student,

I have never been accused of having tunnel vision (that stings), lol. However, you are grossly mistaken as to the extent of my reading. I have looked at the nurturing aspect, the biological aspect, the Neuroscience aspect, and the hormonal imbalance aspect. And Truth be told, I am considering the hormonal imbalance theory. I mean mother could have had an overload of estrogen which she then passed on to me (in the womb) forever altering, my testosterone levels. I mean this sounds like a plausible enough argument, does it not? Still this is a biological reason, and therefore fall within the Nature aspect.

As for the Necrophilia argument, you have lost me. How is it possible to try sex with dead people, dislike it and yet have it live up to your expectations? Yet, I do agree with you that you don't have to spend time with dead people to find the idea appealing. I don't spend much time with homosexual men, and I am quite appealed by the idea of shagging a chosen few.

Again you are right, about sexuality being fluid; I mean who knows the precise reason why. It is why the argument is still so much embryonic and stagnant in its growth. I with my inordinate amount of ignorance has decided to stick with the Biological reasoning for homosexuality, because I am very much desperate to have a reason for being gay. This is my comfort (my ignorant bliss), my need to be pigeon-holed (at least in one area of my life), and this Biological reason is it.

I mildly disagree with the the "tabula rasa", blank canvas theory, again for my very own ignorant reasons, which are backed up by my unintelligent observations. It seems I think that being in a womb does not mean complete isolation from the world, considering you are being fed foods from this world to which after your womb life, you may have an affinity for them in your world-life. I am also of the silly opinion, that while you are in the womb you may become accustomed to certain sounds and music; and may prefer to have these sounds or music played for you after your womb-life. Now, all of this has nothing to do with a child's sexuality, but it merely tells me that a child can be affected by life in the womb, thereby it being an impossibility of them being beautiful blank canvasses. But those are just my uneduacted observations, so disregard these follies immediately.

In regards to a child's sexuality, I have watched many TV shows, and have read several articles which have intellectually pointed out that some children struggle with sexuality issues as early as two years old (these poor souls), and have over and repeatedly stated that they were born in the wrong body!! Some have even tried commiting suicide, because the level of uncomfortability they feel of "being born in the wrong body", is quite overwhelmingly hopeless to them, that they feel they must kill themselves. All of this is being said, merely to say, whatever Nature has done to these children, or whatever evil thing had Nurtured them to this perspective, is severely unfortunate, and of course wrong (I hope it wasn't those subconscious factors you mentioned)!

As for your last paragraph, you seem to be saying sexuality is too within our arbitrary choices, individual likes, or even our non-sexual desires!! Unfortunately (for me), you have lost me in my ignorance, and this concept is beyond the parameters of my intelligence to converse of. So, please forgive me for not being on your level of thinking... I am sorry!

[colinmackay]

You've given me some food for thought it's really hard to say because (being frank) I did get excited around women, dated them, liked straight porn. I did briefly at one point in my early teens feel like a 100% straight man; not a bloke or anything as macho and ridiculous, I was always arty and weird. Just not attracted to guys because I hadn't had that 'trigger' from my friend. I suppose by extension that means I COULD have been born that way unknowingly.

I could say it was somewhat similar with me. In hindsight I can see that the signs were there. I never got the same rush of emotion with a woman as I did with a man, for example. However, I did manage to convince myself I was straight for ~20 years.

I looked at straight porn, I looked at attractive women in the street, etc.

However, in reality, I see that it was just me pushing down the gay to hide it as best as I could.

What it took was making my first openly gay friend to provide me the validation that I needed. That knocked down part of a barrier in my head and all of what I'd been suppressing over the years began to rush out.

I could say that he turned me gay. He was the trigger. But (to carry on the gun analogy) the gun had to have been loaded first.

BTW, I recently started reading The Velvet Rage which has been (at least in the first few chapters that I've actually got through) a real eye opener. It explains all the feelings I've had over the years and why I had them and the various ways in which things can progress.

I think they call this point sexual malleability, during the formative years.

I think that the malleabilty is also something you are born with. Everyone has some level of malleability, some more than others. The ones with the most you'd probably call bi-sexual, pan-sexual, or omni-sexual.

I think in order to have formed a relationship with a woman (which I did... almost got married too) there had to have been some small level of malleability in order for me to continue the self-deception without completely cracking up. (I only fell apart a little at the end, but that wasn't to do with sexuality, at least not that I'm aware of.)

It was only later after I'd been in love with a guy that I got all of the confusion, which led me to believe I was turned rather than born. I could be wrong, it's difficult to say without scientific proof. I'm also open to the idea that both versions are possible, where some are more predisposed towards same-sex attraction than others.

Oh, and the middle class thing - I live up north so I'm required to feel guilt over it as part of my living agreement

I'm remaining open minded. There is the possibility of "being turned gay" just as society did its best to turn me straight, but ultimately I think the best explanation is that it was something that was always there, you just wern't aware of it. That is, you were originally turned straight, but, like gravity, what goes up must come down. i.e. return to its natural position.

If I see enough evidence to say it was nurture more than nature then I'd be very curious indeed.

[Ultra]

I really question more and more whether or not I was born a homosexual. I did have straight porn, I'll admit that I had fun with it. Did I really mean it? No, I didn't at all. It was what society was expecting and I do not want to go that route. The earliest indication that I was gay was when I had crushes on a couple guys in junior high school. I had crushes before that and they were girls, but I didn't truly have crushes on them at all. One thing I know that I'm really gay, I find female genitalia to not look good at all. Though I've found male genitalia to not look good, I'm ultra selective when it comes to male genitalia though. If I attempted vaginal sex... I couldn't do it and I would not feel comfortable about it. There may be some gays who will be hard pressed to find out that they may not be able to perform vaginal sex if they're insecure about themselves, but why would they want to do that? They may try it to prove they're heterosexual or bisexual. Well, it ain't gonna happen...

[Sil]

wow, this has all kicked off a bit! let's have a heated debate...

Daniel6 are you seriously suggesting that diet is a cause of homosexuality? I don't wanna start a flame but that is ridiculous. Rome and Sodom have been enjoying the manlove way before fried chicken and snack cakes.

Degenration physically? I'll buy that. Causing issues regarding sexuality? maybe not.