Gay INTP

[JansenDowel]

Are there any other gay INTP's in this forum? When did you first discover you were not like everyone else?

 

[Smooch]

As an INTP, what did you think/how did you feel when you realized you were gay? Or was it a gradual realization?

 

[JansenDowel]

I knew I was gay at around 6. It was probably gradual, I do not remember. How did I feel? Afraid! As a child, hearing all of those gay slurs made me realize it would probably be dangerous coming out. So I stayed in the closet until I knew how to asses danger more reliably. What about you?

 

[nowakiself]

I realised I was gay when I was about 11. I didn't really believe it though. It was this weird kind of, "yea Ok, I'm attracted to men, but I'm not 'gay'.". I never had any problems with being gay or gay people, I was brought up in a liberal house and my mum has gay friends. The only thing that caused a problem was that I was hanging around with a bad crowd and thought it'd be best not to come out to them. It was sort of odd, I didnt really understand my own feelings towards it until I was about 15. I waited until I was 16 and came out once I left school .

 

[JansenDowel]

Are you from America?

 

[TheManBeyond]

what's the quintessential gay type? i would say ESTPs

 

[JansenDowel]

Lol, that's how I see a lot of straight guys.

 

[TheManBeyond]

maybe they are just YMCAs after all




ba dum tss

 

[nowakiself]

No, I'm from the UK. And I might sound stupid but, i don't get that joke lol.

 

[JansenDowel]

I'm from New Zealand. Google YMCA.

 

[Lot]

what's the quintessential gay type? i would say ESTPs

xSFP would be more stereotypical; especially ESFP's.

No, I'm from the UK. And I might sound stupid but, i don't get that joke lol.

It's less than mildly funny. The YMCA stands for, The Young Men's Christian Association. There was a band called, The Village People. They were notoriously known as homosexuals. They did a song about the YMCA. So it's associated with homosexuality.



To address the op. It was maybe 10 months ago, when I discovered that I had bisexual inclinations (So not gay per say). Although, I'm not sure if it's actually bisexuality, or if it's just a fetish to me. I'm rather picky with men. So it's possible that I'm more interested in the idea of a homosexual relationship rather than actually being in one. Not sure if anyone on the forum can relate.

Most of my adult life I've found men physically attractive, but never had any romantic feelings. It finally dawned on me that I had bi leanings when I found myself with a crush on man.

I've come out about these discoveries to pretty much everyone, but my family, minus my brothers. My little brother thinks it's funny, because of how conservative and involved in the church was. He came out a few ago (my mother cried). My older brother thinks it's gross, but he doesn't care. I don't see myself having a serious relationship with a man any time soon. So I don't see any reason to bother my parents with it. They would rather not know anyways.

 

[The Gopher]

You know I'm surprised there aren't more INTP's out here.... Yeah.. I just came to make that joke. Sad really.

 

[nowakiself]

Yea , I'm aware of what YMCA is, I just mis-read the joke lol.

And to me sexuality is more of a spectrum than it is boxes. So I'd try and avoid labelling yourself if you're still not %100 sure of how you feel. But good luck with it though .

 

[Jennywocky]

You know I'm surprised there aren't more INTP's out here.... Yeah.. I just came to make that joke. Sad really.

You're not just a commodity, you're an INTPf institution.*

*or need to be institutionalized. Still trying to decide.

 

[The Gopher]

You're not just a commodity, you're an INTPf institution.*

*or need to be institutionalized. Still trying to decide.

Well I would have food if institutionalized...

 

[Jennywocky]

I've come out about these discoveries to pretty much everyone, but my family, minus my brothers. My little brother thinks it's funny, because of how conservative and involved in the church was. He came out a few ago (my mother cried). My older brother thinks it's gross, but he doesn't care. I don't see myself having a serious relationship with a man any time soon. So I don't see any reason to bother my parents with it. They would rather not know anyways.

That makes sense.

There's no sense in disrupting their lives and unsettling yours by sharing information that doesn't really have much practical impact for them at this time.

The biggest issue of secrecy is more when you want to be closer to someone but can't share parts of yourself with them because they don't want to deal with it... or for example if you'd be involved with a same-sex partner as an LTR and you can't bring them home for family holidays and the like, etc.

Well I would have food if institutionalized...

At times I've considered prison or instititutionalization as part of my comprehensive plan to have my resources paid for and be liberated from a typical workweek.


There are probably some flaws in that plan, though.

 

[mrrhq]

I don't believe how many bisexual and pansexual men get called gay just because they like men, or act slightly more flamboyant than straight guys, but it happens all the time.

I think women have a harder time being gay when every guy finds them sexy or something, but women tend to value individuality more than men do. Men just ridicule other men for the stupidest shit.

All in all, it's a tough and happy life being gay! Choose wisely!
And I have a hard time believing that sexual preference isn't just a choice.

 

[OrLevitate]

I don't believe how many bisexual and pansexual men get called gay just because they like men, or act slightly more flamboyant than straight guys, but it happens all the time.

I think women have a harder time being gay when every guy finds them sexy or something, but women tend to value individuality more than men do. Men just ridicule other men for the stupidest shit.

All in all, it's a tough and happy life being gay! Choose wisely!
And I have a hard time believing that sexual preference isn't just a choice.

BELIEVE IT!

 

[JansenDowel]

And I have a hard time believing that sexual preference isn't just a choice.

Its not a choice.

 

[JansenDowel]

Yea , I'm aware of what YMCA is, I just mis-read the joke lol.

And to me sexuality is more of a spectrum than it is boxes. So I'd try and avoid labelling yourself if you're still not %100 sure of how you feel. But good luck with it though .

I view it as a spectrum as well. But I am 100 per cent sure that I'm gay. I wish I wasn't. But gotta live with what you've been dealt I guess.

 

[The Gopher]

Its not a choice.

This is a completely different topic but I am curious.

-----------------

Probably not naturally but just theoretically can it be a choice? I've heard that some people can change what they are attracted to (although it didn't mention changing sex just size etc..) by "insert scientific method here that I didn't pay attention to." quite quickly.

Did you choose your orientation mrrhq? I mean personally I could probably make myself attracted to trees if I wanted to be but it hasn't developed naturally and I see no reason to.

 

[nowakiself]

@JansenDowel

Yea, same here, I'm comfortable with my sexuality and agree that to my conscious understanding I'm %100 gay. But I also like to take each person on an individual basis rather than see people as male or female, man or woman. What do you dislike about being gay? As you mentioned before about being in a homophobic environment wont help with your self esteem :/. My only advice would be to put all the spare effort you have to create an environment that's nurturing and supportive for yourself, and that allows you to be the happiest/best you can be. Sounds cheesy but I believe in it .

 

[JansenDowel]

This is a completely different topic but I am curious.

-----------------

Probably not naturally but just theoretically can it be a choice? I've heard that some people can change what they are attracted to (although it didn't mention changing sex just size etc..) by "insert scientific method here that I didn't pay attention to." quite quickly.

Theoretically? You can purposefully direct learning (operant conditioning); and so "learn" a new preference. But so what? Although the "learning" was directed by conscious effort, the learning itself is probably not conscious[1]. Access to the affective component[2] of this new "learned preference" is probably non conscious either.

In short, it depends on how you define "choice".

1) Julian Jaynes: Origin of Consciousness, chapter 1.
2) Social Psychology: Accessibility of Attitudes.

 

[Goddess]

It's been a while since I never checked this forum again after some suspended or something I guess, don't quite remember. And today I check this forum and found this thread.

I am gay. I realized it since I was 15, start dating when I was 17. By then I figured it out and discovered that I am gay since I was around 6 or 7.

Somehow I think that I know I am INTP because I am gay.
And since most of this forum member are male, it got me questioning are there any female like me here?

 

[JansenDowel]

It's been a while since I never checked this forum again after some suspended or something I guess, don't quite remember. And today I check this forum and found this thread.

I am gay. I realized it since I was 15, start dating when I was 17. By then I figured it out and discovered that I am gay since I was around 6 or 7.

Somehow I think that I know I am INTP because I am gay.
And since most of this forum member are male, it got me questioning are there any female like me here?

You're brave! How did your parents handle it? Mine didn't handle it well.

 

[Goddess]

You're brave! How did your parents handle it? Mine didn't handle it well.

I didn't say I have coming out already
No one knows. I only talk about this with online friends or gay friend and now this forum. Coming out is not a good choice in my circumstances right now. And I live in a country where there is no acceptance for such thing. I don't think my family can handle it.
My acceptance of who I really am is enough for me right now.
And living in discreet is quite natural for INTP.

Lucky for those who live in the Western country.
It's seems easier with their acceptance.

 

[Jennywocky]

Lucky for those who live in the Western country. It's seems easier with their acceptance.

It depends on the family.

Some families are supportive.
Others are abusive and/or will disown you.

We've become more supportive socially of LGBT in the last twenty years.

 

[StevenM]

Since I hit puberty (I'm guessing I was 11 or 12). I tried to keep it discreet since then.

I really liked how my closest heterosexual friends handled it recently. It was insignificant. Not a big deal. They shrugged and said "yeah, okay". Almost as if I stated that I had brown eyes.

There was no fear. There was no awkwardness. Life continued on as usual, and nothing more was expected of me. Except for the fact that I no longer felt that I had to hide. I could be myself.

And this is how I view the subject as well. Sexual orientation should be just a small part of who we are, surrounded by millions of other aspects that make up our personality. Attempting to think of it rationally, I can't see any good reason to make such a big deal of it.

Except for the fact that there are people who do make a big deal of it. As if it's an abomination to life. The fear and hatred towards it. It's essentially made to be a big deal, by those who believe things like people who are left handed are servants of the devil. The confusion that surrounds it somewhat creates significance to the subject.

Well, I came out to the forum. . When I came out to my closest friends and one person of the family, I wanted to be an example that showed them that the stereotypes don't always fit. I aimed to represent 'gay' as someone who can be moderately masculine, calm, serene and drama-free, realistic, intellectual, unobtrusive, and welcoming. Not to say that these are qualities of gay people, but to prove that being gay doesn't have to signify an absence of these characteristics.

 

[Finnris]

I would probably be considered aromantic graysexual, demisexual, or some such label, but eh. Like someone else stated, I prefer to take each person on an individual basis. I don't really think of myself as masculine or feminine. But I am an INTP female, so maybe that plays a role.

To answer the OPs questions: It doesn't make me feel much more different than I already feel as an INTP. And I haven't "come out" because I prefer to let people think whatever they choose. I have never introduced any romantic partners to the family, so I think they've got the point by now.

 

[joogabah]

This is my first post. I'm gay and INTP and circumstances have led me to chew on the idea of gayness and I've come to a few points I'd like to share:

1) I believe it is likely that homosexual desire is universal, but heterosexual desire must be learned in adolescence. This is a consequence of being one's own sex and being familiar with the body of one's own sex. Societies must demonize homosexuality and terrify men into heterosexuality. This is done primarily via gender, where "girl" becomes an insult and an aggressive, misogynistic, sadomasochistic heterosexuality is expected. Ironically, sensitivity on the part of a male and/or a very close relationship with a female early in life can interfere with this process and make heterosexual desire (as it is constructed today) unappealing in a deeply unconscious way. Exclusive homosexuality arises when a hyper masculine heterosexuality is avoided. Some of these males retain the maternal effeminacy of childhood to the point of identifying with the female sex. Others just fail to complete the masculine program to its fullest extent, and become masculine homosexuals, bisexuals, soft heterosexuals, or overcompensating gay bashers.

2) Circumcision and anti-masturbation stances are intended to help boys avoid eroticizing their own form.

3) Childhood sex segregation for the purpose of gendering along with abstinence programs that demand celibacy until marriage make it very likely for boys to experiment secretly with each other, and some people think it is even advisable to allow boys to go through this homosexual phase - that it satisfies curiosity and, with the appropriate kind of rivalry and respect, facilitates heterosexual camaraderie via homoeroticism (guys want a hot girl to impress the guys they care about).

4) The economic reason for gendering is militarism and motherhood. The masculine and feminine genders are geared towards these antithetical roles and all social roles are derivatives of these two primary forms. The two roles, due to their opposing requirements, must be kept separate and reinforced at every level of social interaction.

5) Because human labor power is a commodity, its value is determined by supply and demand. This means the consumers of labor power (employers) have an interest in effecting policy that forbids homosexuality, abortion and contraception, and encourages as much reproduction as possible. More workers means less bargaining power for workers.

6) Left wing opposition to homosexuality was a consequence of point #5. Quite literally, being gay would lower household income and incentivize homosexuality for all men (2 incomes with no dependents as opposed to 1 income with multiple dependents). Once women made it into the workforce, this was no longer an issue and with the end of the draft, homosexuality was removed from the DSM.

7) The word homosexual doesn't make it into English until the 1890s. It was coined in German in the 1860s. Prior to this there wasn't a conception of a constitutional homosexual, there were only forbidden sexual acts. Some of these prohibitions may have a rational basis. Anal sex is a major vector for disease transmission and is what is condemned in the Bible (not same sex affection or even physicality and orgasm). "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:27)

8) The freedom of humans to choose, based on intelligence and learning instead of hard wired instinct, is precisely what allows humans to dominate the planet. We are potentially able to exist in any environment. Any hard wired instincts limit our freedom in a way that is inconsistent with the malleability of human subjectivity. We are programmable. That is our primary adaptation, and we use language to do it. The language of homosexuality and evolutionary psychology constructs our impression that we are genetically gay.

9) Sexuality performs a bonding function that is arguably the purpose of sex from the perspective of the individual. It is only recently that humans even realized sex led to reproduction.

10) There are cultures where homosexual acts are universal, but gendering appears to be so fundamental to human existence to date that no cultures escaped it. It is only with the advent of overpopulation and the impossibility of war that humanity produces a growing body of exclusive homosexuals that eschew gender. Modern, egalitarian, gender-rejecting (not bending) homosexuality is a new phenomena, reflecting new freedoms never available before.

Given these points, I have a very different perspective on what gayness means. It has many implications beyond a preference for a particular sex in bed.

 

[Sinny91]

I strongly disagree with the first sentence of point 1).
Women have a vagina, men have a penis. One was designed by nature to go into the other. That's what I've always believed. Having said that, I defend the right of every consenting adult to do as they please.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yeah, I'm trying to get a "big picture" of the views being espoused here, and I'm having trouble reconciling the poster's claimed homosexuality with a list of points that seem pretty critical of homosexuals. But maybe I am misunderstanding the writer's intention. My view is similar to Sinny's in that, sure, reproduction obviously works a particular way but a lot of these points seemed focus on deriving some kind of morality (i.e., how we are "supposed" to experience and pursue our physical sexuality) rather than just accepting that there is no real morality except what is imposed by humans and people can make their own choices.

(heck, even getting your ears pierced is going against biology because we aren't born with pierced ears "naturally" but who really cares if someone pierces their ears?)

Could joogabah explain better how all of this fits into his particular experience of sexuality?

 

[crippli]

I look at sexuality as universal, for mammals. I prefer to split a human cycle in the following categories for mammals that are comparable. Age is relative to lifespan.

*Pre fertility - age ~age ->12
*Fertile ~age 12-45
*Post fertility ~45 ->

Then there is actual fertility. When a egg can be fertilized with semen. For the female this is:
Pre fertility - 1 to 3 days before egg release
Fertile - a few hours each month
Post fertility - 1 to 2 days after egg release

A male is usually fertile if they can achieve semen release.

It gets complicated if a female will not stand in the fertile phase. And if a male will not ride. Not sure what goes on when this occurs. So called homosexuality though is most certainly universal. This will usually occur in the *Pre fertility and Pre fertility phase. In the Pre fertility phase there is usually transsexuality also. Like a cow will ride, on most anything. And fuck like she have a penis. However, when she is fertile she will stand, and no longer ride. Egg is released in the ovulation and will travel to the uterus, as take some hours. On it's way, it may pick up sperm or it may not. Sperm should ideally have been laying a few hours for conditioning in the uterus before it meet the egg. Sperm also have short lifespan.

Long story short. Timing is precarious. Humans in general go about this in a very crude and anything that could even remotely resemble precision and skill. Usually, two well conditioned humans will crudely fuck each day until success....

"homosexuality" and "transsexuality" is necessary in terms of precise impregnation, "heterosexuality". Indulging in all 3 are necessary for expert performance and precision. Otherwise, one is sort of, stumbling around in the dark.

 

[joogabah]

Yeah, I'm trying to get a "big picture" of the views being espoused here, and I'm having trouble reconciling the poster's claimed homosexuality with a list of points that seem pretty critical of homosexuals. But maybe I am misunderstanding the writer's intention. My view is similar to Sinny's in that, sure, reproduction obviously works a particular way but a lot of these points seemed focus on deriving some kind of morality (i.e., how we are "supposed" to experience and pursue our physical sexuality) rather than just accepting that there is no real morality except what is imposed by humans and people can make their own choices.

(heck, even getting your ears pierced is going against biology because we aren't born with pierced ears "naturally" but who really cares if someone pierces their ears?)

Could joogabah explain better how all of this fits into his particular experience of sexuality?

I accept the Marxist premise that ideological superstructures are by in large determined by economic necessity. So I'm looking for the economic necessity behind certain ideological arrangements of sexuality in our time.

I perceive multiple moralities that are class-based. I see dominance and submission as part of the human condition that the species is apparently determined to overcome. I think sexuality is central to this process and that is the reason issues of power are so frequently paired with sexuality, which doesn't seem necessary if sex is just a pleasurable activity. Rape as a turn on never made sense to me until I understood the eroticization of dominance and submission, and how that could be employed to get a dominated class of people sexually turned on by their own oppression. I see females as the first class of humans to be regarded as "other", objectified and used as a means to an end.

I also think that while liberalism is important for the free discussion of ideas, the focus on the individual can preclude analysis from other angles and leads to conclusions like there is no objective basis for morality. And yet - morality is never an individual matter. Isolated, morality has no meaning, because morality is a question of what we should or should not do in our relationships with each other. It is always negotiated and intersubjective. But it can definitely have a rational, objective basis (and the prohibition mentioned in Romans 1:27 seems like it could be an example of this - and I would expect a population with no knowledge of microbiology to assume the correlation between particular behaviors and disease was an act of punishment by "God").

I am an atheist who recently moderated my anti religious views after considering the fact that religion is not a scientific hypothesis on the material origins of the universe, even if some of its myths claim to be. It is a commentary on the human condition. Just because its literary forms are not literally true, it does not follow that it is worthless. As an example, just because Santa isn't real, it doesn't follow that the very basic, low level morality of being good to get what you want (which is the only moral level accessible to very small children) is irrelevant. In an allegorical sense, Santa is very real. You won't get what you want if you aren't nice to people. And Santa is required to impart this wisdom to very green individuals.

Similarly Christ is a kind of scapegoat sacrificial substitute necessary due to guilt and psychological projection and the tendency for human populations to go after someone to place all blame when things are going badly. That was poorly worded but it is early and I'm still tired.

I am aware that other perspectives are sensitive to some of the points I've made. I hope it is clear that I'm not trying to fight with or condemn anyone. I'm just enumerating my observations because I think I've stumbled upon an emerging explanation of my own experience that is rarely discussed from this angle.

 

[Sinny91]

Lol, I don't see why here's any need to complicate something so simple.

 

[joogabah]

I look at sexuality as universal, for mammals. I prefer to split a human cycle in the following categories for mammals that are comparable. Age is relative to lifespan.

*Pre fertility - age ~age ->12
*Fertile ~age 12-45
*Post fertility ~45 ->

Then there is actual fertility. When a egg can be fertilized with semen. For the female this is:
Pre fertility - 1 to 3 days before egg release
Fertile - a few hours each month
Post fertility - 1 to 2 days after egg release

A male is usually fertile if they can achieve semen release.

It gets complicated if a female will not stand in the fertile phase. And if a male will not ride. Not sure what goes on when this occurs. So called homosexuality though is most certainly universal. This will usually occur in the *Pre fertility and Pre fertility phase. In the Pre fertility phase there is usually transsexuality also. Like a cow will ride, on most anything. And fuck like she have a penis. However, when she is fertile she will stand, and no longer ride. Egg is released in the ovulation and will travel to the uterus, as take some hours. On it's way, it may pick up sperm or it may not. Sperm should ideally have been laying a few hours for conditioning in the uterus before it meet the egg. Sperm also have short lifespan.

Long story short. Timing is precarious. Humans in general go about this in a very crude and anything that could even remotely resemble precision and skill. Usually, two well conditioned humans will crudely fuck each day until success....

"homosexuality" and "transsexuality" is necessary in terms of precise impregnation, "heterosexuality". Indulging in all 3 are necessary for expert performance and precision. Otherwise, one is sort of, stumbling around in the dark.

I am not of the opinion that humans consider reproduction at all in their sexual desire. I believe this to be an over reliance on speculative evolutionary psychology that forgets that DNA is not the only information system that humans employ; that our subjectivity is much more malleable than other animals to the point of making us something qualitatively different.

The present dominant materialist worldview (which I share) forgets about language for some reason. It wants to place all of our behaviors in DNA code, instead of linguistic code.

I think God is language. It is eternal from the human perspective. It predates us and survives us. It is invisible, disembodied "spirit" that has real effects in the population. Certain ideas in language can float about the population (like a demon) and wreak havoc. Having no scientific terminology to express this, early humans made use of the only vocabulary available to them.

Language is our father, Earth is our mother. Reason and human consciousness are products of language, and enable us to create, which is why we perceive ourselves as children of God, created in his image.

I wrote this a couple of days ago:

As an atheist, over time, I've realized that "God" is analogous to something like Freud's superego, and "Devil" the id. With this in mind, I can more easily tolerate the language of the religious. They are talking about the same thing using concepts and modes of expression that originated prior to scientific descriptions of reality. In other words, just because there isn't a literal tortoise and hare, it doesn't follow that a fable is without meaning or value. I think the overreaction against religion is a particular artifact of a newly scientifically literate population. Religion is not a hypothesis on the origin of the material universe, even if its stories purport to explain that. It is a commentary on the human condition. And even if God didn't create the material universe, Language creates the idealized constructs we use to make sense of it, and Language provides our species with a form of information that is preserved from generation to generation, when all other species only have DNA. Language has a much more profound impact on human consciousness and shaping human personality and experience than DNA, which basically just builds our bodies - the hardware, not the software. To the extent that we employ language and intelligence, we drift away from the reliance on biological instinct. We perceive this as "freedom", even if technically it is still determined, because it isn't biologically determined and unchangeable (the way instincts are). And in the Christian tradition, scripture actually says "In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God." and "I am the alpha and the omega" (A to Z - the alphabet). God spoke and Earth existed. With Language (which no individual is responsible for) a construct is created that synchronizes human perception. Collectively we speak it, and so it exists in our minds. No other species does this. And the body of all human culture and knowledge, passed down with Language, literally creates us. What we deem to be the best of that knowledge, and perhaps more importantly its apparently limitless potential, is what we worship as "God". It's the individual's animal instincts (when anti-social) that are represented by an animal spirit with horns and a tail - the devil / the id.

 

[joogabah]

Lol, I don't see why here's any need to complicate something so simple.

The point is to resolve contradictions within simpler explanations. This is how knowledge advances dialectically.

 

[Sinny91]

How did this escalate from sexuality to God form ?? LOL.

 

[Sinny91]

The point is to resolve contradictions within simpler explanations. This is how knowledge advances dialectically.

Contradictions ??

Dialectically ??

Sounds like you're still over complicating a very simple issue.

 

[onesteptwostep]

What we deem to be the best of that knowledge, and perhaps more importantly its apparently limitless potential, is what we worship as "God".

Are you sure that's the Judeo-Christian deity? How does Christ fit into this picture? What happens to the Holy Spirit? i.e. the Trinity?

I've had the same thoughts as yours (your entire post there), but I know that if God is bigger, than he's bigger than any theory that we (well Freud and Marx to be exact) are able to come forth with. I don't see how merely language accounts for the workings of God in the Christian ontology.

 

[The Gopher]

Lol, I don't see why here's any need to complicate something so simple.

Let me explain INTJ's, INTJ's everywhere... There now I made it about type. We have God, Sexuality and pop-psychology all in the one thread.

On a side note it's more likely both are universal or neither are. I don't quite get the whole big picture thing. Not to say I don't understand it but it doesn't seem to fit with my perception of the world.

 

[Puffy]

Similar to Lot's post. I'm essentially heterosexual. All of my friends were in my University's LBGT community for a few years though, so I had the chance to experiment and found I could be physically attracted to men if there already existed a close enough emotional bond between us. I've tended to form 'crushes' on other guys in these circumstances since then.

In honesty, except in a polyamorous situation, I doubt I would have a romantic relationship with another man, just as I know my attraction to females is more naturally intense, which makes it unlikely to be sustainable. Sex as an extension of close friendship I'd definitely do though.

 

[Jennywocky]

Thanks for the clarifications. Your prose still tends to be complicated to parse, versus put in understandable terms (which is likely what Sinny is referring to), but you've framed it better here.

I accept the Marxist premise that ideological superstructures are by in large determined by economic necessity. So I'm looking for the economic necessity behind certain ideological arrangements of sexuality in our time.

Limiting it to one such frame of reference instead of multiple is likely a mistake; but sure, economics do play a role. Probably all the patriarchal crap involved in the OT, for example, springs from the economics/resource management of the time, along with other concerns (such as the cleanliness rules embedded in religion actually being driven by virulent epidemic threatening to the culture if not immediately quelled and wanton sexual activity prohibited).

Social mores usually arise and/or persist for a reason, even if we obfuscate the causes due to abstracted slight of hand that takes a life of its own. (e.g., all the cult built around an ominiscent father god that controls a person's choices as its own layered system and divorceable from the actual underlying causes that drove it.)

I perceive multiple moralities that are class-based. I see dominance and submission as part of the human condition that the species is apparently determined to overcome. I think sexuality is central to this process and that is the reason issues of power are so frequently paired with sexuality, which doesn't seem necessary if sex is just a pleasurable activity. Rape as a turn on never made sense to me until I understood the eroticization of dominance and submission, and how that could be employed to get a dominated class of people sexually turned on by their own oppression. I see females as the first class of humans to be regarded as "other", objectified and used as a means to an end.

Okay, sure, sex can be manipulated and used as a source of power among the established class. Who can have sex with who, who can have sex at all, the weaker being used as the sexual objects of the stronger, etc. And sure, old patriarchal society using women as resource and absorbing them into complying with their own subjugation. Same patterns translated into different historical scenarios.

(Although I tend to see people as being driven to power by either desire and/or fear, and sex is just one thing that can be abused as an expression of power.)

I also think that while liberalism is important for the free discussion of ideas, the focus on the individual can preclude analysis from other angles and leads to conclusions like there is no objective basis for morality. And yet - morality is never an individual matter. Isolated, morality has no meaning, because morality is a question of what we should or should not do in our relationships with each other. It is always negotiated and intersubjective. But it can definitely have a rational, objective basis (and the prohibition mentioned in Romans 1:27 seems like it could be an example of this - and I would expect a population with no knowledge of microbiology to assume the correlation between particular behaviors and disease was an act of punishment by "God").

That clears up better what you've been saying.

To put it a different way, I view the "social rules" as more objective than people give credibility to. They're not all arbitrary. People generally respond in certain ways; group dynamics (at least for a particular culture, but we see some broad patterns cross-culture) can generally be coalesced into an understandable pattern; many are grounded in some discernible reason for existing. There are even dynamics in play here on this forum, despite the old reverence for individuality, that show up on many online forums; human behavior still follows discernible patterns and the rules spring from them.

(Even the old fable of the woman who was cutting off and throwing away the ham end because her mother did so as well had a grounded reason -- the mother's pan was too short for the whole ham. It was just that the rule no longer made sense, since the daughter had a suitable pan. So her actions now were inappropriate, but the original rule had been driven by a fact.)

So yes, while some rules can simply be whimsical or capricious, typically there is some particular cause for them to exist even if they might now be outdated or inappropriate; and human psychology might blossom within the confines of particular social mores than others.

I am an atheist who recently moderated my anti religious views after considering the fact that religion is not a scientific hypothesis on the material origins of the universe, even if some of its myths claim to be. It is a commentary on the human condition.

Agreed. It's unfortunate here in the US that we have a sizeable minority that insists otherwise and can't simply embrace it for what it is.

Just because its literary forms are not literally true, it does not follow that it is worthless. As an example, just because Santa isn't real, it doesn't follow that the very basic, low level morality of being good to get what you want (which is the only moral level accessible to very small children) is irrelevant. In an allegorical sense, Santa is very real. You won't get what you want if you aren't nice to people. And Santa is required to impart this wisdom to very green individuals.

No issues with that.

Similarly Christ is a kind of scapegoat sacrificial substitute necessary due to guilt and psychological projection and the tendency for human populations to go after someone to place all blame when things are going badly. That was poorly worded but it is early and I'm still tired.

No problem, I get it, I've heard/perceived this before (it's not like you're saying something new -- the scapegoat from the OT is very much parallel to Christ in the NT, except of course elevated to divine status). The twist is that the scapegoat as sinbearer/sineater is generally viewed negatively, while Christ is placed on a pedestal for the noble sacrifice of abandoning perfection to carry the weight of the world's inequity.

I am not of the opinion that humans consider reproduction at all in their sexual desire. I believe this to be an over reliance on speculative evolutionary psychology that forgets that DNA is not the only information system that humans employ; that our subjectivity is much more malleable than other animals to the point of making us something qualitatively different.

The present dominant materialist worldview (which I share) forgets about language for some reason. It wants to place all of our behaviors in DNA code, instead of linguistic code.

Sure, reproduction might be a genetic compulsion on one level, but we don't really think of it that way and we pass cultural/learned memes from generation to generation.

Maybe it's helpful to think of things as assembly versus high-level language. It's not an exact comparison for obvious reasons, but the gist is that we don't think or perceive in assembly even if it's a component that drives us; we think in high-level "humanized" language, and we can come to decisions to override assembly based on that high-level language. In fact, ideas can be reproduced/perpetuated through that high-level cultural/social/conscious mentality without ever being embedded in assembly or DNA.

I think God is language. It is eternal from the human perspective. It predates us and survives us. It is invisible, disembodied "spirit" that has real effects in the population. Certain ideas in language can float about the population (like a demon) and wreak havoc. Having no scientific terminology to express this, early humans made use of the only vocabulary available to them.

I'm not sure how you can say a language predates the speaker. Language only exists to benefit the speaker. Maybe the idea of language was a potentiality within the universe, and then we came along to fulfill it. But not much more can be said about it.

As an atheist, over time, I've realized that "God" is analogous to something like Freud's superego, and "Devil" the id.

Yeah, that's pretty transparent, even in religious circles who accept Freudian concepts.

God = conscience = other-focused = superego = nuture
Ego = Self = Mediator between superego and id, makes the decisions
Id = animalistic impulses = devil/bad = self-focused = nature
　

With this in mind, I can more easily tolerate the language of the religious. They are talking about the same thing using concepts and modes of expression that originated prior to scientific descriptions of reality. In other words, just because there isn't a literal tortoise and hare, it doesn't follow that a fable is without meaning or value.

You know, this is a lot of words to state an idea that isn't really that complicated nor even really that controversial.

Have you been hanging out with atheists who can't handle any kind of mythos or higher meaning in their worldview? Most reasonable people can look at religion or other belief/cultural systems and acknowledge that they don't have to be literally true in order to provide some amount of value, depending on underlying reason and eventual result.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

I knew I was gay at around 6. It was probably gradual, I do not remember. How did I feel? Afraid! As a child, hearing all of those gay slurs made me realize it would probably be dangerous coming out. So I stayed in the closet until I knew how to asses danger more reliably. What about you?

Honestly, you knew when you were 6 years old.
wtf comon man...
I dont know it almost feels like people think of them as a part of the LGBT community just because it is a 'rebellious' thing to do.
Just like most of the people here identify themselves as 'asexual' because thats way cooler than being straight.

idk, but i dont think a 6year old really understands things enough to make such a decision.
It feels like there are many that identify themself as part of the LGBT community just because it is a way to break the social norm.

This and people doing stupid things like "bug chasing" just because they want to stand out is one of the reasons most of us are slightly homophobic.


PS, im not really against anyone's own preferences, but a 6 year old identifying himself as part of LGBT is just a bit too far, i mean he doesnt even know what straight means, then what do you mean by being gay..
like did you realise it even before meeting kids in school..?

 

[Sinny91]

I agree with Yolo, almost exactly.

Sexuality was farrrrrr from being in my mind at the age of 6.

I liked dinosaurs.

 

[Jennywocky]

I agree with Yolo, almost exactly.

Sexuality was farrrrrr from being in my mind at the age of 6.

I liked dinosaurs.

Sexy dinosaurs?
Six-y sexy dinosaurs?
Sick-sy six-y sexy dinosaurs?

--

the poster would have to explain.

Sexual preference shouldn't be a concern until puberty.

Gender variant kids do show up in the typical age range when kids start expressing gender identity, however. (As early as two years old.) And culture tends to blur the line between gay sexuality and gay/gender-variant behavior. It's also not uncommon for gender-variant boys to express as gay as puberty.

So maybe the poster was conflating those realities... he was doing things that culture would align with gay-ness in boys or feminized behavior, versus actually having sexual urges at age 6.

Giving them a benefit of a doubt, that's the best I can come up with.

 

[Reluctantly]

for the record,
I have memories of having some kind of urge(s) at 7. It was probably sexual, though I'm not sure. It felt like I was slightly turned on and wanted something, but I wasn't sure what it was as I didn't know how to relieve it or have any sexual feelings towards gender. It just would happen sometimes and then it would go away.

edit:
Supposedly, pre-pubescent children can orgasm. I only know this because pedophiles have attested that they have made children orgasm... poor kids

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

men are ugly
gays are abberant

 

[redbaron]

I knew I liked the opposite sex before age 6, so why wouldn't a gay person know they like the same sex?

Also a lot of the genetics of homosexuality has been studied pretty extensively. It's something that can be known or inherent to a person's identity as young as the age of 3.

Study 1

Study 2

Lots more to be found as well.

 

[Yellow]

Just saying first, there are those who have had sexual or proto-sexual experiences at far too early ages. Some children already have the "benefit" of hindsight to help them know their sexual orientation. There is also a matter of observed/perceived gender roles and one's own identity within them. My gender identity matches those I observed during childhood well enough for everything to have seemed unquestioningly "normal" and "obvious". I can only imagine how it would feel to see stark differences between the familiar roles in my environment, and my own inclinations. It's logical to assume that it would lead to a much younger age of orientation awareness.

That being said, I didn't have an ounce of homosexual urge as a child or teen. I'm freakishly straight. I guess someone has to hold up the extreme end of the sexuality spectrum, right? To the point, I know that I couldn't change my sexual orientation if I wanted to. So unless gay people have some amazing power I do not possess, I'd say it's a safe bet that they can't choose to be different either.