OP: Queer As Folk Show

You did not know what this would generate, so you live with the results. Never saw the show; it has not arrived on European tv as far as I know and I do not watch that much anyway. How about an update on science?

For roughly thrity years there have been gross indicators that male homosexuality is gentically determined. Nothing definitive but evidence has been accumulating over thirty years that has most people in the medical community convinced. There has been an interesting study completed in Italy that is the first to support that lesbians are similarly determined by genes and should convinvce the rest of the world that homosexuality is not a choice. Too bad the study was with fruit flies. I'll avoid the obvious omments here.

By changing one gene in the entire DNA of fruit flies, female flies acted like male and vice versa. The male fruit fly is heavy into oral on his girl friend and the female seems to love it. By changing one gen, the females became highly oral and active and the male passive and receptive.

Earth shaking? No. but DNA is DNA and there is a very high likelihood that this study is replicable in higher forms of life. It will be. Hopefully, never in humans; that gives me the ethical shudders but has me convinced that both male and female sexuality are gentically determined. I doubt that that will make homosexuality more acceptable overnight, but it is a start.

This leaves us bi-sexuals in a questionable position. I see no way to scientifically settle this one in my lifetime but we, too, may be programmed this way. At present, I agree that homosexuals, male and female, are as natural as heterosexuals. Natural not normal. Natural is a physical or life scientists' term; normal is a sociological or psychologists term meaning simply, what most people do. Within the gay community, homosexual behavour is normal; within the wider population, it is natural but not normal. Hell, if nature programs a person, s/he is natural and that is determinant over normal any day.

Now, bi's, among which I count myself. We do have a programmed predilection. We have a learned, alternative orientation. My sex life is, today, primarily lesbian - or whatever with another bi woman. I have had periods of my life when I was "exclusively" hetero or homo focused. There are distressing or confusing little indicators, though. My sexual fantasies are almost entirely with men; sexual dreams are always with men. During my hetero cycles, my cheating was with men; during my homo cycles, my cheating has also bee with men.

Not scientific and I am not teaching this part. I have concluded that I am truly heterosexual but have learned that others of my sex can do almost everything for me that the other sex can do. There are only two things I can identify for which I "need" a man. A real penis in me is unlike anything else. That is a physical reaction that simply feels good. A man leaves a little deposit that I find very satisfying. Biologically, my role is to accept that little deposit and the hundreds of millions of sperm swimming around my reprodcutive tract. That is psychologically satisfying. My true lesbian friends can enjoy sex with a man but do not take the same joy in accepting the female role in sex as my bi-women friends.

So, where are we? Sexual orientation is truly genetically determined and all should be equallya ccepted as god's creatures or whatever term you like. There is still room to learn (my learning began by accident) the "other" orientation.

My hope is we move beyond the tv shows you describe and all be more accepting. I draw the line at pedo's.

Brandye

Posted: 30 Sep 05:40

Hi Brandye,
Well, a long response... if not necessarily on topic...lol.

There was a great article in the Boston Globe recently called "What makes someone gay?". It was a really good story. It dealt with most of the scientific research being done and the political and social ramifications.

The theory that seems the most logical to me involves the "hormonal wash" that a fetus undergoes to determine the sex. If this wash determines the sex of the child then why not the sexual orientation?

I'd personally like to move on past the "why" stage and have people just start dealing with the fact that we ARE. There are and have always been gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. It's time to accept that as fact and live and let live.

oberon

Posted: 30 Sep 05:40

This would be great, but there are many people who will not believe something until it's proven to them without a doubt. Then there are the ones that will not believe under any circumstances. *sigh*
In order for these people to accept you AS YOU ARE (their translation: WRONG), they must first be convinced that you have no choice in the matter. See what I'm getting at? If you choose to be gay, then you are wrong/unnatural/deviant etc. etc. If, however, you have no choice in the matter and are born gay, then there is the possibility of acceptance because it is natural.
Of course this will effectively leave bi-sexuals in a sticky situation. If gay people are finally accepted, the brunt of discrimination will probably transfer to bi-sexuals.

canoestripper

Posted: 30 Sep 05:40

I do not want to argue with anyone, but I am bisexual and I believe that I was born that way. I started noticing it at a VERY young age and it scared me at first. I noticed that I had crushes on girls as often as I had crushes on guys. I denied this for a long time because it was frightening to think that i wasn't straight like everyone i knew. I can accept it now and I wholeheartedly believe that I was born that way.

-Mariah

girl12

Posted: 30 Sep 05:41

OK, some thoughts...
In the natural order of things males mate with females to procreate (in most cases), thereby continueing the species (whatever it may be). Ideally the offspring will eventually mate with the opposite sex and continue the cycle. Nature, therefore, wants offspring that is attracted to the opposite sex. If not, no reproduction, so nature would like 100% to be born staight.

Extending this to humans gets a bit more complicated since we are self-aware and can choose when and with whom to have sex. I would think that instead of a bell curve distribution of sexual orientation, that it would be more like this:
Born straight:70%
Born bi:20%
Born gay:10%

Mariah and Brandye bring up interesting points about being bi-sexual. Brandye's experience seems to be learned, where Mariah's is inherited. So we can surmise that while 20% of the population are perhaps born with bi-sexual tendencies, there is probably another 10% or more that choose to become bi. This also extends to any of the other orientations.

I surmise that you can be born straight, gay, or bi, but you can also learn to be a different orientation that you were born with. Aren't our brains wonderfully confusing things!

canoestripper

Posted: 30 Sep 05:41

Really? How do you come to this conclusion? You, of course, realize that in many species some animals never get the chance to mate? So why would nature want them to be straight? eg. A wolf pack. Only one pair of the pack ever produces cubs. The rest of the pack are support.

Nature is actually full of many different types of sexuality. There is a species of lizard that has NO males. There are species that change sex. The Bonobo chimps have homosexual relationships (actually, they sort of go for "free love"...lol), and they have the most peaceful chimpanzee society on the planet. They don't fight, they just have sex. Sounds pretty good to me.

I think nature, of course, wants to reproduce. But it actually take a comparitively small number of individuals to do that. So, how do you keep the rest of the members of the species happy? You create members whose sexuality doesn't allow them to reproduce. You also create members who can reproduce, but can also be content not to (this would be the largest group since it would be a "fallback" if anything took out the breeders {and I don't use that term as a slur...lol}).

Unfortunately, in the case of humans, societal concepts limit the function of bisexuals and gays. We have groups that teach that it is everyones' function to reproduce... in defiance of natural laws. It's why we have 6+ billion people on a planet that is daily getting smaller.

oberon

Posted: 30 Sep 05:41

Well, i just read this thread, and there seem to be 2 going on at the same time:
1) Impact of QAF
2) What makes someone gay/bi/str8

Here are my thoughts:

1) I have watched a number of QAF episodes. Now, TV shows like food are all a matter of taste, and for me, I could not idenfify with really ANY of the characters. I mean, if i were a 21 year old gay man i think i'd be a devout fan (and if that was the demographic target for the show, then it really hit its mark). That said, i found alot of what was covered on the show to be more confusing to most non-gay folks than clarifying. From almost every episode starting or ending at a dance club (no, not every gay man likes to dance or go to clubs and dance till 3am in the monring and then go out to breakfast at the local 24=hour diner), to the overall body images that were portrayed.

Sorry, in every gay community i lived and worked in, 70-80% of the single gay crowd were bottoms (and man is that an issue that's always bantered about in IM's and chat rooms), and why on QAF were 90% of all the guys in great shape, showing six=pack abs, perfect teeth and skin? Because it's TV and its about ratings.

Sorry, folks, not ALL gay men are gym-rats. Yes, many gay men are body-conscious (but all u have to do is look at all the ladies magazines to see that body obsession is a national issue, not a gay issue), but there are many more gay folks with average body types. Where were the "bears" in QAF? Where were the "trolls" on QAF (a troll is a term used to describe an old - 50+ - man, who's out of shape, doesn't care that he's out of shape, usually bald, and always pushy when it comes to hanging around and hitting on younger inshape guys?)

I guess they were creating their own environment on QAF, but for me, it wasn't so groundbreaking other than it showed how gay men have sex - and like sex alot!

2) What makes someone gay/bi/str8?
I think i have a unique perspective on this issue. Many of you know that i was married to a woman for 12 years, have a 15 year old son, and now have been living with my gay lover for 8 years. Now, other than some mutual masturbation as a kid, i did not have my 1st man2man sex until i was 30 years old. That single even uncovred something in me that would change my life completly.

This could be a long response, but i'll cut to the chase. Clearly there's a genetic issue when it comes to sexual orientation - we know that every fetus is 'a-sexual' until a signal is sent to the individual cells to determine the sex of the fetus. That chain of events is so ultra-microscopic, that even the slightest deviation of that complete sexual diretion on a micro-cellular level WILL cause changes in the child. So what does that mean to me?

Well, put simiply, I fully belive that every single person knows deep in their soul the sex of the person they see themselves as being their "life partner." There lies the key to identity.

I married a woman because i thought thats what men were supposed to do.
I "married" my husband becuase i knew in my soul that i could only be true to myself committing to a man.

Could i have sex, even good, hot sex with a woman? Hell yes, i did it for 15+ years! Could i love a woman very deeply? Hell yes, i did for 12 years. Would i be lying to myself about myablity to truely committ my heart and soul to her? YES.

I hate the term: sexual orientation. Being gay, str8, bi is not about genitalia. Trust me, if you blindfold a 100% str8 man and a man starts sucking his cock (and h e's not allowed to touch or see who's sucking him) he'll enjoy it and probably shoot a huge load. Does that make him gay or bi? Of course not! This same scenerio could be said of a Female/Female sexual test.

I don't think the acceptance of diversity in our community is well served by a debate on the "cause" of what makes a person gay/str8/bi. Hell, with our luck, they'll discover the genetic cause and then start that old debate that being gay is a genetic disease like many forms of cancer!

So, have sex with whoever u want (safe of course). Make it safe, sane and consensual. Have fun. Learn. Expand.

But, when one looks deep inside themselves, I always hope each person is honest about the sex of the person they see themselves with for the rest of their life. To me, its about love and committement that makes know i'm gay - not where i put my cock.

Rawbob

Posted: 30 Sep 05:41

Not that this has anything to do with the sexual orientation issue...

Quote (canoestripper @ Aug. 20 2005,19:25)
"...nature would like 100% to be born staight."

"Really? How do you come to this conclusion? You, of course, realize that in many species some animals never get the chance to mate?"
I do realise this, which is what I meant by saying (in most cases). Of course there are exceptions.

"I think nature, of course, wants to reproduce."
One of my main points exactly.

"But it actually take a comparitively small number of individuals to do that. So, how do you keep the rest of the members of the species happy? You create members whose sexuality doesn't allow them to reproduce. You also create members who can reproduce, but can also be content not to (this would be the largest group since it would be a "fallback" if anything took out the breeders {and I don't use that term as a slur...lol})."
What you are referring to here is the result of millions of years of natural selection. From Wikipedia: Natural selection is a process by which biological populations are altered over time, as a result of the propagation of heritable traits that affect the capacity of individual organisms to survive and reproduce. It is one of several mechanisms that give rise to the evolution of biological species (other mechanisms include genetic drift and gene flow.) However, natural selection has a special significance because it is believed to be the one responsible for organisms being adapted to their environment. Natural selection can be subdivided into two types: (i) ecological selection, which arises from the portion of an organism's environment not related to direct sexual competition (such as the availability of food, the presence of predators, and so forth); and (ii) sexual selection, which arises from the competition for mates between individuals of the same sex. The reason for this division is that the effects of sexual selection can produce results that seem counterintuitive from the point of view of ecological selection alone (a famous example being the tails of peacocks, which, though cumbersome, serve an important purpose in courtship displays.)

Most of the animals you mention are also more intelligent and high on the food chain. This makes a difference. Compare wolves with mice. Mice breed like crazy. Why? Because they have a biological need to, in order to feed other species (snakes, raptors, etc.) What keeps them from overpopulating? The balance of being preyed upon and lack of food for them to eat. In fact, starvation accounts for population control in most natural environments. A lot of food results in large populations, less food results in starvation and deceased populations.

Of course not much of this applies to humans anymore because we change our surroundings instead of adapting to them.

canoestripper

Posted: 30 Sep 05:42

On the contrary... as I pointed out, this occurs in many different species in a wide variety of circumstances. To take your example of mice... there ARE instances of "gay" mice. There has been a lot of discussion lately, as well, about "gay" sheep and horses. Both of which are "prey" animals.

Population control is only one function of diverse sexuality. It also provides members of a species that- having no offspring of their own- are free to help with those that do. They can provide "daycare service", take on orphaned young, and help acquire extra food. I would think it also cuts down on inter-species friction since some members aren't interested in mating to reproduce.

Unfortunately, we often change it for the worse. We come up with arbitrary ideas that can be detrimental to the species as a whole. By ostracizing gay people, family units lose a whole support structure that could greatly enhance society. Who better to help with family units than those that don't have one of their own? Who better to take unwanted children? Gay people would be the first option in taking care of elderly or disabled parents. Too bad society has "cut off its nose", so to speak.

(I hope you know that I'm just discussing here... NOT fighting. )

oberon

Posted: 30 Sep 05:42