Realizing you're gay: What is meant by that?

[Evo]

Now, how could a boy ever start thinking and believing that his own emotions is not his own emotions, his own self??
It is a total and complete self-contradiction, but there you have it:
That's how I went through puberty; what "I" was, was a-sexual, not-yet heterosexual, the girl hadn't come along yet.
If you had asked me if I was gay, I would have answered with complete sincerity that I was not.
If you had asked me if I got excited at the thought of other boys, I would have lied and said no, because that could make you mistakenly believe that I was gay, something I wasn't (I know, it is totally ludicrous).

That is, I systematically deceived myself, those emotions which at times was the dominating mental content in my were explained away by me in the most ridiculous manner.

I think I know what you're saying. You were raised as a "male" and normal expectations would be that you would grow up to sexually desire women. When that didn't happen for you, you dealt with your "normal" gay feelings by separating them from yourself because it didn't fit the image of what you had been taught would happen. I can see the confusion and the need to somehow deal with it.

However, those emotions I had, was crystal clear and roared within me: They were from day 1 unwaveringly homosexual; the sole source of "confusion" was my consistent refusal to integrate them in my self-conception. I simply wouldn't budge, and hear the call.

This is why I think early exposure (on tv for example) of gays leading normal lives and having normal feelings can help teenagers that are gay realize that they don't have to separate their real feelings, that there is nothing wrong with how they feel. That they are normal.

And here's the thing:
Once that happened, something else I had never thought should happen as well:
Suddenly I understood what a zombie-like existence I had led earlier, I was totally drained of emotion in my daily life, all my mental energies had been used to keep that glass wall complete, what was left outside the chamber was merely a hollow shell who led a vegetative existence.
My puberty was therefore never to be rushed along this or that emotional high or low (which it seems to have been for straights), it was extremely dull, and it was only when I was animated by those fires that I truly understood that what I had shut off was simply my life-force, my identity as a human being. My sense-perception widened, and the ardour I used in schoolwork was equally drawn from that source.

Thus, a gay boy matures, I think quite differently from the straights, who in the frightening, but exhilarating ride have to sort out who they are to become; in me, it was effectively two clearly distinguished halves developing on their own who finally choose to clasp hands and become one.

The "fires" which to me is "self-evidently" gay due to the curious development I've been through, is none other than my life-force, my identity which is with me all day.
It does not mean I think about men all the time, my life-force has just some particular colour, even though the expressions of that life-force is differs widely over the day.

Do you feel you gained more by going through the mental turmoil, or would it have been better to have known and accepted who you were sooner? Or is it impossible, now you've gone through this, to even look back and guess in hindsight?

For straights, who evidently have a personal identity at least as strong as mine, I think their road to self-identity is quite different.
They build themselves up, I think, "piece by piece", rather than the way in which I've described my own road.

Yes, it's a much simpler path when you are just meeting expectations already set for you.

 

[arildno]

I quite agree, Astronuc; but just one thing here:

Let's take it as a given that we have a 98/02 distribution of straights/gays.

My contention is that no matter how supportive and gay-friendly a society becomes, the gay child will tend in the direction I described as my own way, whereas the straight will tend the other way.

I think that a major component in any child's psychology is the fear of being abondoned, not liked; and hence, however differently a child feels himself to be, there is a strong wish in him "to be like the others" (reducing chances of abandonment).
But that could well mean that a child who already as say 4-5 years old feels "different" in some indescribable, not necessarily bad way has a strong urge to be like the others, and when puberty arrives and emotions arrives which is known by him to be very different from those of most of his friends, then a practically automatic panic reaction sets in: I do NOT want to be THAT different, that is NOT me at all.
I.e, a gay child will spiral off in the direction I did, with due respect to individual differences and temperaments, of course.

 

[Astronuc]

I think that a major component in any child's psychology is the fear of being abondoned, not liked; and hence, however differently a child feels himself to be, there is a strong wish in him "to be like the others" (reducing chances of abandonment).

But that could well mean that a child who already as say 4-5 years old feels "different" in some indescribable, not necessarily bad way has a strong urge to be like the others, and when puberty arrives and emotions arrives which is known by him to be very different from those of most of his friends, then a practically automatic panic reaction sets in: I do NOT want to be THAT different, that is NOT me at all.

I.e, a gay child will spiral off in the direction I did, with due respect to individual differences and temperaments, of course.

I quite agree. It is difficult to project how a 'gay-friendly' society would affect how gay/lesbian children develop, because we don't live in such a society.

The church and religious denomination with which I am affiliated does however work toward that goal.

I think I know what you're saying. You were raised as a "male" and normal expectations would be that you would grow up to sexually desire women. When that didn't happen for you, you dealt with your "normal" gay feelings by separating them from yourself because it didn't fit the image of what you had been taught would happen.

I agree with Evo's point. Children are raised with certain expectations - especially based upon what they obseve their mom and dad, grandparents and other family members. Boys seem naturally to expect to be like their father, and girls seem naturally to expect to be like their mother. The 'natural' may be somewhat culturally arbitrary. To be different to what is expected of one by others can be very stressful.

 

[arildno]

Now, I didn't start this thread in order to tell a tale of woe and misery; rather, Iwas interested in hearing if there are psychological experiences by which straights and gays differ in their maturement, and hence, that we quite possibly might have rather divergent mentalities as adults.

Just one thing about "emotional turmoil":
It certainly didn't feel like I was going through an emotional turmoil which it was so evident to me that the others went through.
I felt my old self really, it was dull, the only puzzling aspect was all that mental content in me which I didn't think of as myself, yet which was deeply attractive nonetheless.
Thus, to me it was a revelation that I was gay;
I fell head-long in love more strongly than ever before, and couldn't understand how divine perfection could sit beside me in this totally ordinary class-room.
That is, effectively, I think my own emotions had matured a lot further before I embraced them than what is the case with the straights around me.

(they fell in love constantly, broke up after a day and would never ever speak to that horrible person again, and Mum was just awful today and so on..).

At the time I did embrace myself fully, I was 16, the hormones had settled somewhat relative to the period 12-14.

 

[Clausius2]

I cannot believe how the hell a man doesn't like women. Women are the sweetest thing on the world, no matter they result a bit expensive by the way...

Anyway, I sincerely belong to the group of people who thinks this behavior is not as "natural" as the relationship between a man and a woman. I do thing nature designed us and every alive being to reproduce and evolute its proper specie. Two men never could do that. If every men were gays, then our specie will disappear soon. Besides it, accepting the gay behavior as a natural one implies we are accepting that part of our specie is unable to keep on reproducing. I do know this thinking could sound a bit primitive, but it's an scientific point of view. No matter we are too many people on Earth, each human being was primarily designed to mantain the specie and reproduce. From a biological point of view, what I have just mentioned is an essential characteristic of human beings.

I respect gays, and I don't think it's fair to discriminate them only by sexual issues. But I will never believe those who claim that two men having sex is as natural as a man and a woman doing so, understanding the word "natural" on
the broadest meaning. Also, there are two living ways for a gay. One is being discrete and behaving as an heterosexual, this kind of homosexual guys are elegant. The other one is going screaming over there the homosexual condition, and getting dressed ridicully as woman as someones make in parties and so. This last behavior degradates any gay fight against discrimination, because on this way all people laughs at them. If gay people want to fight for their rights, they must look like serious people, and not being over there dressed up in costumes.

By the way, if you're a gay and feel discriminated, please come to Spain. Zapatero is hearing the claims of gays. Spain has been the third? country who has approved the gay marriage. Unfortunately, Zapatero doesn't hear to the victims of terrorism, he doesn't hear to Catholics too, and he doesn't hear to normal workers. But you should know this kind of """"social advances"""" such as allowing gay marriage has the result of more votes in next elections. They are "effective measures".

 

[arildno]

Do you feel you gained more by going through the mental turmoil, or would it have been better to have known and accepted who you were sooner? Or is it impossible, now you've gone through this, to even look back and guess in hindsight?

I don't really know.
I never really felt ashamed of having those puzzling and deeply exciting fantasies (which wasn't me); I had made some truly ludicrous ways of explaining them away which actually made me feel smug in my supposedly pre-heterosexual life.

I didn't realize how deeply unhappy I'd been before I realized I was gay.
I thought I was quite happy, actually.

Yes, it's a much simpler path when you are just meeting expectations already set for you.

I'm not too sure it was that simpler for you; it seemed to me that you all went through these heart-wrenching episodes almost every day.
It actually felt like a "relief" to remain the dull, old, not-yet sexual me.

 

[arildno]

Clausius2:
To define the "meaning" of your own sexuality at the basis on what might happen two or three times in your life (i.e actually procreate) is rather wrong.
the "meaning" of your sexuality is what you in general get out of it in your daily life.

 

[Astronuc]

Now, I didn't start this thread in order to tell a tale of woe and misery; rather, Iwas interested in hearing if there are psychological experiences by which straights and gays differ in their maturement, and hence, that we quite possibly might have rather divergent mentalities as adults.

I didn't see a tale of woe and misery as the reason for the thread. I just thought that there was something significant going on.

I think 'gays' and 'straights' do develop differently, mostly for reasons already discussed. However, I do not think this necessarily leads to "divergent mentalities as adults." It might, but not necessarily. Afterall, everyone develops differently.

As for turmoil - that was my teenage years. I was at odds with the 'world' and I still am, and most likely will always be. I was at odds with my parents in some cases, with the religion in which I was raised, with every political system that exists and ever existed, and with the culture in which I live in general.

I have never met any authority that didn't need to be challenged. That said, I have quite a few people in positions of authority who I deeply respect. They are often few and far between though. I also respect Greg, Warren, and the Supermentors who do a very good job of keeping PF running relatively smoothly!

I rage against the injustice, hypocrisy, inequality and stupidity that I see. But that's me, and it makes for an interesting life.

 

[Moonbear]

Now, I didn't start this thread in order to tell a tale of woe and misery; rather, Iwas interested in hearing if there are psychological experiences by which straights and gays differ in their maturement, and hence, that we quite possibly might have rather divergent mentalities as adults.

Just one thing about "emotional turmoil":
It certainly didn't feel like I was going through an emotional turmoil which it was so evident to me that the others went through.
I felt my old self really, it was dull, the only puzzling aspect was all that mental content in me which I didn't think of as myself, yet which was deeply attractive nonetheless.
Thus, to me it was a revelation that I was gay;
I fell head-long in love more strongly than ever before, and couldn't understand how divine perfection could sit beside me in this totally ordinary class-room.
That is, effectively, I think my own emotions had matured a lot further before I embraced them than what is the case with the straights around me.

(they fell in love constantly, broke up after a day and would never ever speak to that horrible person again, and Mum was just awful today and so on..).

At the time I did embrace myself fully, I was 16, the hormones had settled somewhat relative to the period 12-14.

Well, one of the trickier parts of this is that there is a lot of variation in age of puberty. Even among just straights, the age at which you enter puberty relative to your peers is going to affect your outlook on relationships. If someone enters puberty a bit later, after watching all their friends act all goofy with the emotional ups and downs of lust and attraction, they may be mature in going through that themselves, or, the first person going through puberty may be the one seemingly wiser in giving good advice to their peers who go through puberty later because they've sorted out all those feelings and had their hormones stabilize a bit sooner.

But, I see what you mean now about not feeling different. You somehow closed your emotions up, so didn't go through the emotional ups and downs, you just went through puberty in more of a detached emotional state than those boys who are jumping out of trees to "impress" the girls one moment and feeling down and mopey when they get ignored or called stupid the next.

What always puzzled me was the situation of the guy one of my friends dated in high school. He insisted he was straight, and dated several of the girls in high school, but unlike other boys, he seemed to prefer going shopping with them, or just holding hands. To the girls he was dating, he was the "perfect gentleman." I know I and a few others suspected he was gay from the day we met him, just something seemed "different" about him and the way he interacted socially, yet, he was dating the girls. Then in the summer before his senior year, he finally came to realize he was gay and came out in his senior year. So, some of your description here has helped finally explain what has puzzled me for a very long time, which was that I didn't understand how many of the rest of us were aware or suspected that he was gay but he himself wouldn't admit it and truly didn't seem to believe it. I think some of his ex-girlfriends were shocked by the news, but other than that, most of us just kind of had this reaction like, "How did you not know this before," or, "Why did you pretend to be straight when we asked if you were gay?" So, I'm actually really glad you finally explained that in a way that makes sense. I had always thought people just didn't admit it to others for fear of rejection, not that they didn't even admit it to themselves and were somehow in denial about it, not just to others, but even to themself.

 

[Clausius2]

Clausius2:
To define the "meaning" of your own sexuality at the basis on what might happen two or three times in your life (i.e actually procreate) is rather wrong.
the "meaning" of your sexuality is what you in general get out of it in your daily life.

I don't understand your point, and I don't understand why you adopted the word "meaning". Anyway, a sexual event between a man and a woman hasn't got the result of procreating every time. But that's because we use anticonceptive methods. It doesn't imply that the proper fact of such sexual moment is not to procreate. It's to procreate indeed, but voluntarily we don't want to do that. Nature didn't create sex to spend a great moment of pleasure only, the main mission of sex is to procreate. But we usually only chose one part of the movie, which is the pleasure moment it implies.

I prefer to talk you in a sincere way rather than saying politically correct stupidities which sound very good from a politician, but not from me.

 

[Astronuc]

Anyway, a sexual event between a man and a woman hasn't got the result of procreating every time. But that's because we use anticonceptive methods. It doesn't imply that the proper fact of such sexual moment is not to procreate. It's to procreate indeed, but voluntarily we don't want to do that. Nature didn't create sex to spend a great moment of pleasure only, the main mission of sex is to procreate. But we usually only chose one part of the movie, which is the pleasure moment it implies.

Being married as I am, most of the time it is for fun. My wife and I have had two children. She is now beyond child-bearing, so now sex is strictly for fun.

 

[Moonbear]

Anyway, I sincerely belong to the group of people who thinks this behavior is not as "natural" as the relationship between a man and a woman. I do thing nature designed us and every alive being to reproduce and evolute its proper specie. Two men never could do that. If every men were gays, then our specie will disappear soon. Besides it, accepting the gay behavior as a natural one implies we are accepting that part of our specie is unable to keep on reproducing. I do know this thinking could sound a bit primitive, but it's an scientific point of view. No matter we are too many people on Earth, each human being was primarily designed to mantain the specie and reproduce. From a biological point of view, what I have just mentioned is an essential characteristic of human beings.

Actually, that's not a very good "biological" point of view. From a biological point of view, one recognizes that non-reproducing individuals in a social species can be highly advantageous. Consider colonies of ants. Only one female reproduces, the queen, the rest are workers that help care for the eggs and larvae and ensure the best chance of survival of those offspring. The same in bee colonies. The same occurs with other social mammals where one dominant female bears the litters and the other females and subdominant males are more like "aunts" and "uncles" that can provide a group effort in raising offspring rather than everyone having to manage to take care of their own. Considering how much effort and energy must be put into raising a human child from infancy to independent adulthood, having members of our society who are non-reproductive yet still feel a desire to nurture those young is beneficial. One doesn't even need to be gay to be non-reproductive. I'm quite straight, and love being around children, but if I never reproduce, I'll be quite content to lavish my nephew with all my love, or perhaps to adopt a child that a heterosexual couple produced yet was not sufficiently fit to raise.

 

[Clausius2]

Being married as I am, most of the time it is for fun. My wife and I have had two children. She is now beyond child-bearing, so now sex is strictly for fun.

Agreed. But if we want to speak about the naturality of a sexual event between two men, we must leave what we usually do and make scientific judgements. And the fact that nature designed the sexual act to procreate is one of them, despites we nowadays don't use it for that. But we have been using it for procreating during the last 100.000 years.

 

[Moonbear]

Nature didn't create sex to spend a great moment of pleasure only, the main mission of sex is to procreate.

If that was the case, then it makes little sense that women are sexually receptive at all times during their menstrual cycle. It seems there may be more reason for sex in humans, such as social bonding, than just procreation, or else we'd have as high of selection for an overt estrus at the time of ovulation, and only at the time of ovulation, as other mammalian species exhibit. Or, for that matter, when a woman is already pregnant, she will still have sexual desire. This would make no sense if the only purpose was procreation as she has already successfully accomplished that and cannot produce any additional children until the one gestating is born.

 

[Moonbear]

Agreed. But if we want to speak about the naturality of a sexual event between two men, we must leave what we usually do and make scientific judgements. And the fact that nature designed the sexual act to procreate is one of them, despites we nowadays don't use it for that. But we have been using it for procreating during the last 100.000 years.

Just because that is ONE function of sexual behavior, it doesn't mean it is the ONLY function.

 

[Clausius2]

Actually, that's not a very good "biological" point of view. From a biological point of view, one recognizes that non-reproducing individuals in a social species can be highly advantageous. Consider colonies of ants. Only one female reproduces, the queen, the rest are workers that help care for the eggs and larvae and ensure the best chance of survival of those offspring. The same in bee colonies. The same occurs with other social mammals where one dominant female bears the litters and the other females and subdominant males are more like "aunts" and "uncles" that can provide a group effort in raising offspring rather than everyone having to manage to take care of their own. Considering how much effort and energy must be put into raising a human child from infancy to independent adulthood, having members of our society who are non-reproductive yet still feel a desire to nurture those young is beneficial. One doesn't even need to be gay to be non-reproductive. I'm quite straight, and love being around children, but if I never reproduce, I'll be quite content to lavish my nephew with all my love, or perhaps to adopt a child that a heterosexual couple
produced yet was not sufficiently fit to raise.

I understand you, but I keep on thinking it's a right biological point of view. Nature always doesn't make the things right. Sometimes we have children given birth without arms, legs or with some discapacity or wrong deformation. Yeah, they are on earth, and they must be loved as any other human being. They must not be discriminated also. But that was not the original plan of nature for them. Nature wanted to enable them with full extremities, with full capacities, to be able to live in this ecosystem. I don't think those ants are the same thing than an homosexual human being. Sorry if I am being to unpolitically correct, but I usually talk clear as the fairly waters.

 

[Clausius2]

Just because that is ONE function of sexual behavior, it doesn't mean it is the ONLY function.

I haven't expressed it well. I do agree with you. Sex hasn't be designed only for procreate, but it's an essential factor in our lives, isn't it?. We wouldn't be talking if our fathers hadn't sex. If I had to put in order I would put to procreate as the main mission of sex, and next to it the human links as you pointed. This last point has recovered more importance in this last age, because we are less "animalized" than we were 100000 years ago. But the fact the time has passed and we are more civilizated doesn't exclude sex was originally and mainly planned to procreate in our early animal stages.

 

[juvenal]

As others have mentioned, it's extremely simplistic to reduce homosexuality to as simple as "The penis is designed to be inserted into a vagina and result in reproduction, and any sexual behavior that deviates from that is unnatural". Maybe you're right, to some extent, but so what? And where does one put masturbation, oral sex with a female, etc? How about artificial insemination?

How about any sort of non-sexual general behavior? Is there any point in classifying it as natural or unnatural? If I sit around all day watching football or playing video games, is that natural or not? It certainly doesn't help my reproductive chances.

 

[Clausius2]

Anyway, Arildno, you're now 34. Are you planning to adopt some child? That's another point I am interested to discuss. It has been too much polemic here about this stuff last days.

Again, my opinion is not going to like everyone, but I feel morally requested to expose it and not saying what is "correctly" seen by people who qualifies themselves as a modern one.

Here there has been a quarrel between those who didn't want to employ the word "marriage" in an union between two gays, and those (the government) who have accepted it in the classical way of the word. I don't care about the semantics. I do think that any union between two gays must have the same administrative rights than a marriaged couple of man-woman. To be sincere I am more concerned and afraid about the right of children adoption. I don't think current (spanish) society is prepared to accept a child whose parents are gays. I have been at school when I was a child, and we usually (as any other child) laugh at those who were rare (fat, wearing glasses, ugly...etc). Every children is cruel at their early stages, and if you don't believe it try to remind your school times or visit some class. If we had known some child whose parents were gays, we had been doubtless in laughing at them the most as possible. Children are so, and we cannot avoid it unless we initiate a campaign of education (which it has not being initiated). Therefore your child would be discriminated and feel himself far away from normality. Do you think this child is going to be happy with a gay couple?. Another point is the lack of a mother and the impact she has in our education and values.

 

[Danger]

There are studies showing that sexually dimorphic areas of the brain are more similar between heterosexual females and homosexual males than between heterosexual and homosexual males or females. These are areas of the brain that are influenced by hormones, both during early development and at/following puberty, though which comes first, the brain development or hormonal environment, I don't know.

I've read about that, but just now was struck by another thought. Arildno's description of the "self/not-self" sounds almost identical to my experience with the ADD. My mind would literally divide itself into as many as half a dozen different components and have conversations with itself. (And no component knew beforehand what another was going to say.) It just seemed to be my way of looking at all sides of an issue, but it stopped when I went on the antidepressants. While I'm certainly not suggesting that there is anything mentally wrong with gays, I wonder if there might be a difference in neurotransmitter production as well as the hippocampal etc. structures.
By the way, a lot of women are extremely attracted to gay men. Perhaps not the sort in everyday normal suburban lives, but certainly in the clubs and particularly with late teen-early 20's women.
Also, I have been hit on by several gay men. My response is the same as it is to unattractive women: it's flattering in a way, but I'm just not interested. Doesn't mean that I won't sit and have a beer with them.

 

[Gokul43201]

Okay, I'll continue, and here's the first point which I believe is quite differently experienced between straights and gays:
When a gay's feelings starts "awakening, then these are practically always regarded as "other", not parts of your self; they are not regarded as signs that you yourself is changing in any fundamental or frightening way.
You yourself doesn't change a bit by this new mental content.
(That is how it felt for me)

This is I believe, quite different from how the pubescent straight feels, as if she (or he) doesn't know herself anymore, she knows she's changing into someone else than who she was before.
It is, however, she who has these feelings, they are her.

Have a totally misperceived straights here?

I think you have ... going entirely on the assumption that I'm not atypical in this way. Nothing in the "me"ness of me changed.

However, I do believe that many straights likely hold the view that this is not the case among gays. I think it is a not uncommon belief among straights, that a gay person goes through a "fundamental change" associated with the realizing of his/her gayness. While I see no reason for an intrinsic change, I certainly see the scope for a reaction (not just in behavior) to what might be the societal response or even to your own social conditioning; particularly in more conservative societies.

 

[Gokul43201]

Arildno, you seemed to have specific questions and points you wanted to address. The thread now seems to be sprouting tangents and drifting away along them. If you'd prefer the discussion be specific to your points raised in the OP, this thread should be moved. By opening the thread in GD, I'm assuming you do not have a problem with it running amuck, as it undoubtedly will.

 

[juvenal]

Just one more thought, and I'll stop hijacking: If all males on Earth suddenly became pious and decided to closely emulate the lifestyles of Jesus Christ or the Pope, that would wipe out the human population within 130 years, given their asexuality.

 

[Lisa!]

Hehe.. I think Dex has an insecure personality and Lisa is simply ignorant of certain things. There are a lot of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom - and there are a lot of animals who have sex not to just reproduce but for pleasure - certain monkeys do it every other minute when they are bored, some do it anally - indiscriminate of the gender or method of delivery.

Hehe..I don'tthink your examples are important because they don't prove anything.I heard about examples in monkies but of course when I was studying about HIV!Who said these animals are normal!maybe it's a kind of sickness.And these people should try to cure their sickness!If scientists think like you , we'll be misrable!
some people are born blind!our Mr perfect cronxeh would search for some examples in animals and say there's no need to find a cure for that because we already have some cases in animals, so it's quite natural.
I would consider homosexuality as a normal thing, if they were able to have a child!So because they can't, I'll be a bit in doubt if it's natural!
It's natural, ok AIDS is a natural thing for humans as well.Who knows maybe HIV is their child!
I have no wish to talk about this subject anymore.So you could think I accept your opinion about homosexuality Mr. knowledgeable! because I don't want to hear anymore about this subject!For me homosexuality=HIV!don't try to cure my phobia because you're not a psychologist!

 

[Gokul43201]

Hehe..I don'tthink your examples are important because they don't prove anything.I heard about examples in monkies but of course when I was studying about HIV!Who said these animals are normal!

If you think homosexuality in the animal kingdom is restricted to sick monkeys with HIV, you are wrong.

Here are some of the animals that have been documented as practicing homosexual/transgender behavior :

# Acanthocephalan Worms # Acorn Woodpecker # Adelie Penguin # African buffalo # African Elephant # Agile Wallaby # Alfalfa Weevil # Amazon Molly # Amazon River Dolphin # American Bison # Anna's Humminbird # Anole sp. # Aoudad # Aperea # Appalachian Woodland Salamander # Asiatic Elephant # Asiatic Mouflon # Atlantic Spotted Dolphin# Australian Parasitic Wasp sp. # Australian Sea Lion # Australian Shelduck # Aztec Parakeet# Bank Swallow # Barasingha # Barbary Sheep # Barn Owl # Bean Weevil sp.# Bedbug and other Bug spp. # Beluga # Bangalese Finch (Domestic) # Bezoar # Bharal# Bicolored Antbird # Bighorn Sheep # Black Bear # Black-billed Magpie# Blackbuck # Black-crowned Night Heron # Black-footed Rock Wallaby # Black-headed Gull # Black-rumped Flameback # Black-spotted Frog # Black Stilt # Blackstripe Topminnow # Black Swan # Black-tailed Deer # Black-winged Stilt # Blister Beetle spp. # Blowfly # Blue-backed Manakin # Blue-bellied Roller # Bluegill Sunfish # Blue Sheep # Blue Tit # Blue-winged Teal # Bonnet Macaque # Bonobo # Boto # Bottlenose Dolphin # Bowhead Whale # Box Crab # Bridled Dolphin # Broad-headed Skink # Broadwinged Damselfly sp. # Brown Bear # Brown Capuchin # Brown-headed Cowbird # Brown Long-eared Bat # Brown Rat # Budgeriger (Domestic) # Buff-breasted Sandpiper... (source : Wiki article linked below)

I've still got 24 letters of the alphabet to cover, but I'm tired of formatting this stuff. The rest of the list may be found here .

don't try to cure my phobia because you're not a psychologist!

Cronxeh made no attempt whatsoever, to cure your http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phobia&x=0&y=0. All he did was correct this patently false statement that you made :

Maybe because it seems abnormal since there is no such a thing in nature for example about animals!

when he responded with :

...Lisa is simply ignorant of certain things. There are a lot of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom...

This thread is defeating its purpose by "living" in GD.

 

[Lisa!]

If you think homosexuality in the animal kingdom is restricted to sick monkeys with HIV, you are wrong.

No,I don't think that!You can search through web and you'l find some articles about HIV and homosexuality!

Here are some of the animals that have been documented as practicing homosexual/transgender behavior :

# Acanthocephalan Worms # Acorn Woodpecker # Adelie Penguin # African buffalo # African Elephant # Agile Wallaby # Alfalfa Weevil # Amazon Molly # Amazon River Dolphin # American Bison # Anna's Humminbird # Anole sp. # Aoudad # Aperea # Appalachian Woodland Salamander # Asiatic Elephant # Asiatic Mouflon # Atlantic Spotted Dolphin# Australian Parasitic Wasp sp. # Australian Sea Lion # Australian Shelduck # Aztec Parakeet# Bank Swallow # Barasingha # Barbary Sheep # Barn Owl # Bean Weevil sp.# Bedbug and other Bug spp. # Beluga # Bangalese Finch (Domestic) # Bezoar # Bharal# Bicolored Antbird # Bighorn Sheep # Black Bear # Black-billed Magpie# Blackbuck # Black-crowned Night Heron # Black-footed Rock Wallaby # Black-headed Gull # Black-rumped Flameback # Black-spotted Frog # Black Stilt # Blackstripe Topminnow # Black Swan # Black-tailed Deer # Black-winged Stilt # Blister Beetle spp. # Blowfly # Blue-backed Manakin # Blue-bellied Roller # Bluegill Sunfish # Blue Sheep # Blue Tit # Blue-winged Teal # Bonnet Macaque # Bonobo # Boto # Bottlenose Dolphin # Bowhead Whale # Box Crab # Bridled Dolphin # Broad-headed Skink # Broadwinged Damselfly sp. # Brown Bear # Brown Capuchin # Brown-headed Cowbird # Brown Long-eared Bat # Brown Rat # Budgeriger (Domestic) # Buff-breasted Sandpiper... (source : Wiki article linked below)



Cronxeh made no attempt whatsoever, to cure your http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phobia&x=0&y=0. All he did was correct this patently false statement that you made :when he responded with :

This thread is defeating its purpose by "living" in GD.

Did you really understand me?When I said I have no more word about this subject and you could think I accept your idea!I meant disregard my post and continue your discussion.and you could think it's kind of phobia that I'm afraid of homosexuality!
I really appreciate it if someone trys to correct my mistake but it's strange when someone do it in this way "Hehe ...Lisa is certainly ignorant of certain things"!I didn't want to come through this thread as I told curious3141 "I'll take a look on your article" but I had to come and clear up things.we should be always open-minded but we have to be careful at the same time.who knows maybe it's a kind of sickness!personaly I have no problem with gays because of lots of reasons!
Thank you for your long list anyway.

 

[abhishek]

I concur with arildno for the most part. For myself, being bisexual, I experienced added confusion because of my misconceived perception of a neat dichotomy in hetero-homosexuality. Something else I would note is that in the absence of a substantial social life (being a geek ), I found that my sexuality didn't interfere with it so much - or vice versa - so I managed to develop my identity "piece by piece".

For those who share the same opinions as Lisa!, I would like to point out just one thing: homosexuality doesn't equate to HIV; unprotected sex does.

 

[arildno]

Now, there were a few issues I would like to address concerning "divergent mentalities" as adults, but Moonbear raised a point about gays as "perfect gentlemen" who nonetheless were suspected as being gay before realizing they were.
I would say it is precisely because gays will tend to act like "perfect gentlemen" with women that the perceptive woman in some vague way understands that he is gay.
(I'll leave the whole biology issue aside for now.)

Gay men can (and do) become FOND of women, they can never, ever love them. To be fond of someone is a special form of friendship natural to all humans; we are fond of our old aunt, children running about, and fondness also extends beyond our race:
We are fond of our pets.

It is nothing inherently disrespectful about being fond of someone, but it is always coupled with, I think, a recognition that there is and remains a large gulf between yourself and the one you are fond of:
The deepest levels of intimacy cannot be fulfilled in either of you in a bond of fondness, but that isn't what you sought after in the first place either.

"Gentlemanliness" is, I think, the natural expression of fondness, and I think it is quite significant that women who has lived with a man who has later come out as gay usually describe him as a tender, gentle and very considerate lover (i.e, the perfect gentleman).

Really, ladies?
Gentle and considerate?
Sometimes I think these women have been frightened at the thought of Woman being released in her in a primal scream.
A gay man can never,ever bring out the Woman in her, he cannot drive her into any sort of ecstasy because he doesn't crave her, desire her; to him, sex with her will never be anything else than giving her a slightly different type of kiss on the cheek.

A gay man is, however, perfectly capable of making a woman comfortable, that is:
He is the perfect gentleman.

Thus, I think what the perceptive woman notices is that this man doesn't have it in him to make her deliriously happy or, for that matter, ragingly mad.
Effectively therefore, I think that a self-assured woman who knows what she wants will also extend fondness back to the gay man; there remains a gulf between them, but that's no reason not to have a pleasant chat together.

 

[arildno]

Anyway, Arildno, you're now 34. Are you planning to adopt some child? That's another point I am interested to discuss. It has been too much polemic here about this stuff last days.

Adopt a child?
Absolutely not!
If I am to have a child, it is to be my own biological child, sired in the old-fashioned way, to whose well-being and upbringing I would be fiercely committed.

Gays have, in general, no problem getting their machinery working around women.
It's easy (and mildly pleasant) to give anyone a kiss on the cheek; and that's effectively how the "act" will be to me.

If a lesbian I respected very much came to me and asked me to father a child, I would be deeply, profoundly touched by that, and might possibly consent to it.
In no way do I feel this is to compromise my self as gay, after all what I'm about to do is what straights love to say is why they have sex: I would have sex with her with the SOLE purpose of procreation.

 

[Spin_Network]

You've expressed yourself very eloquently. I've had a few gay friends (platonic, of course) in the past, they're nice guys and there was no difficulty in interacting with them. Maybe I just wasn't their type, who knows ?

I have not been particular to homo-sexual tendancies, I have been in the company of many gay people, and I can honestly state that it has been a privalage to have experienced their company and friendship, because they have the same interests and certainly moral(in some case's a higher moral opinion) issue's than everyday condacending folks.

If one has a interest in the whole social spectrum, in Nature and its functions for instance, then male gays and female gays, may be Nature's way of stemming the birthrate of our species,[ a sort of self sacrifice?] which is quite humbling from another Human perspective. Gay people may have been made?, been chosen, to be part of Human species that have a function of a collective self-creationary process?..and I say this with a hope that other people who discredit the Gay community, actually spend some time integrating and seeing the bigger picture?..and stem their prejudices and egotistical own problems.

I for one have been enlightened by comunication and friendship of a very important part of community life.

 

[Clausius2]

No matter what you want to be, you'll be always my on-line norwegian friend! :!)

 

[Astronuc]

I am interested in what is meant by "divergent mentalities".

To be fond of someone is a special form of friendship natural to all humans; we are fond of our old aunt, children running about, and fondness also extends beyond our race. We are fond of our pets.

It is nothing inherently disrespectful about being fond of someone, but it is always coupled with, I think, a recognition that there is and remains a large gulf between yourself and the one you are fond of:
The deepest levels of intimacy cannot be fulfilled in either of you in a bond of fondness, but that isn't what you sought after in the first place either.

"Gentlemanliness" is, I think, the natural expression of fondness, and I think it is quite significant that women who has lived with a man who has later come out as gay usually describe him as a tender, gentle and very considerate lover (i.e, the perfect gentleman).

Sometimes I think these women have been frightened at the thought of Woman being released in her in a primal scream. A gay man can never,ever bring out the Woman in her, he cannot drive her into any sort of ecstasy because he doesn't crave her, desire her; to him, sex with her will never be anything else than giving her a slightly different type of kiss on the cheek.

The same holds for heterosexual men.

I think what Moonbear is getting at is the fact that a gay man does not behave aggressively toward a woman, in general, but rather behaves in a gentlemanly way. On the other hand, I get the impression that far too many heterosexual men behave in a more aggressive manner.

At the risk of generalizing, I think single women are looking for that 'perfect gentleman' with whom they can develop a 'secure' relationship in which they can release that primal scream (I'm using arildno's words here). This is the basic mating pattern. If a woman is going to invest in a relationship in which she will bear children, I expect that she will want the man to be around for a long time - i.e. lifetime.

 

[arildno]

No matter what you want to be, you'll be always my on-line norwegian friend! :!)

You shouldn't have posted that last smiley, Clausius..
It impels me to say you are the most handsome guy at PF (no, I have no trouble keeping my hands strictly on the keyboard; I'm interested in men I meet in real life and who are gay like myself).

But, you are simply spoken, God's gift to women.

 

[arildno]

I am interested in what is meant by "divergent mentalities".

The same holds for heterosexual men.

I think what Moonbear is getting at is the fact that a gay man does not behave aggressively toward a woman, in general, but rather behaves in a gentlemanly way. On the other hand, I get the impression that far too many heterosexual men behave in a more aggressive manner.

At the risk of generalizing, I think single women are looking for that 'perfect gentleman' with whom they can develop a 'secure' relationship in which they can release that primal scream (I'm using arildno's words here). This is the basic mating pattern. If a woman is going to invest in a relationship in which she will bear children, I expect that she will want the man to be around for a long time - i.e. lifetime.

From what I sense, it seems to me that women want to change their lover over time into that gentle, considerate lover, not have him from the very start.
I would think that women do want the impetuousness, impulsiveness and fierce, male passion for her in their lover during the beginning of their relationship (and that is something no gay man can ever provide her with).
That she also wants to get him under her thumb over the years is, of course self-evident..

 

[arildno]

Now, I'll briefly sketch what I mean by "divergent mentalities" (not in this post as such, but a necessary introduction).
In order to do so, I have to go back and describe in some further detail how it was for me to stand "outside" those roaring fires, or as Moonbear put it, having my emotions "bottled up".

Now, some has probably wondered; HOW could I possibly deceive myself in this manner?
For example, if I were in the physical presence of a sexy boy, wouldn't my clammy hands, the rhythm of my heartbeat, the way I breathed, and how my hands trembled (and not the least, how my mind would be) just scream at me in completely unambigious manner that I was in love with him?

The answer in my case is that I never, ever felt any such symptoms when I was in the actual physical presence of them!
My heart-beat was perfectly normal, my hands didn't sweat overly, and I had no problem whatsoever turn my mind away from him.
The only whiff of sentiment I actually felt in the actual presence of these boys, was that I repeatedly caught myself looking at them, admiring their hair, the earlobe, how the held the pencil they were scribbling with and so on.
That is, all I felt in their actual presence was a mild, pleasing contentment in looking at their features. It was not at all difficult breaking my gaze, even though I might catch myself doing the same some time later.

Effectively, as I see it now, I held my body in an iron grip; it was not to feel any such symptoms at these times.
My emotions and bodily reactions were effectively delayed, and it was only at night-time, by myself when I visited that fire-chamber that I reveled in the play of the roaring emotions in me.

Now then, what about those unabashedly and unwaveringly homosexual fantasies I indulged in?
Shouldn't they have told me what was going on?

These, I were able to explain away in the strangest ways, and my trump card, the one feature of myself that kept me absolutely convinced I wasn't homosexual was that I didn't feel any fervent emotions towards boys when I was in their actual presence.


With this in mind, it is perhaps easier to realize what an earth-shattering experience it is to realize you're gay:
Suddenly your BODY roars into life; not only wishing to engulf the boy who you fell in love with, but you become positively drenched in all sort of sensations.
For example, now it was very easy to see what made a guy "hot" (actually, I was a bit ashamed of that, since then I wasn't "faithful")
But it meant also, that you suddenly felt the delight of soft rain on your cheeks and other such "non-sexual" events.

What you actually experience is what it means to be alive, and at the same time having the experience of what it means to be dead. I was finally free, and I had never known I was in prison.

Of course, it is a perfectly natural feeling that when you are in love with a particular individual, the whole world seems to brighten up.
But I do not think this feeling of prison walls shattering around you is an experience straights have had to the extent I, and other gays have had.
And that feeling, I think, is so crucial in the development of the gay mind that we effectively is sent off on a subtly different track than straights.
That's what I'll get to later.