So when did you first figure out that you were heterosexual?

[CameronQuick]

When I was in Kindergarten a little girl grabbed me at nap time (this was a long time ago!) and put my head in her lap. She stroked my head lovingly and I felt my whole body tingle with excitement. That was my first clue that touching girls could be special and that I would become obsessed with female contact in the years to come.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Ugh!!!!!! Sooooo many things I want to say. I'm a bit buzzed so here it comes a spewin.... I know, "born this way" and all that, but... Having had several gay and lesbian friends I can confirm that there were things in their past, be it an overbearing or an uber needy mother, an absent/abusive father, or just having all one gender siblings. We have a joke with my gay friends ".....aaaand this is why you're gay" sure we joke, and I'm not about to try to change them AT ALL, but I feel there's a nature/nurture thing happening.
I've done a bit of reading about the research involving epigeneomes (especially studies done with identical twins) and its facinating!!!!! The slightest bit of neglect can change one twin's genomes to make them prone to cancer like little switches, and vice versa.
Don't lambaste me, the things I read weren't sexual in nature but they got me thinking. I just think there's more to "born this way" than we realize.
Just the whole nature/nuture thing. I find it so interesting! Makes me wish I had more formal education

May I speak, as I'm one of those born this way people you tend to think maybe isn't and being also I'm an identical twin. In your saying we may not be so identical I have to agree, my sister and I are very identical on the outside, even now, although she is somewhat heavier than I am but she's carried two children and I have not. In other ways we aren't very identical, I'm very musical, I played the piano before I was four. I hear, taste, smell and feel music it wasn't until I was older that I became aware that most people only hear music. Whereas my sister won't even sing, because she always sings off key. I have a learning disability, whereas my sister does not, as a matter of fact she's quite brilliant. That said we still share exactly the same DNA.

Until about two years ago my sister would have told you she was hetero. Which she wasn't, she was in denial, it's complicated but does have to do with our Father, a man who loved us both, at least until I came Out. I'm sure the pages I'd need to explain the reasons would not really interest you. Since our Father passed away about 2 1/2 years ago she is free of that burden. So after 2 failed marriages, engaged to marry a third man, she is now in love with and living happily in sunny California with another woman. So yes we were born this way!

I'll surely listen to whatever you have to say about environmental reason. But many people suffer the same type family environment and the vast majority do not become lesbian or gay. Maybe it's those nurture things that make so many people hetero. Or maybe god just made some of us special.

I was going to site many web pages having information on gay twin studies but I think this one
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm is the easiest to understand. It's not really a religious site per say but it's all explained in the 'About Us' statement. Beside it kinds of kicks the hell out of those conservative Christians. You know the ones, hate the sin but love the sinner. Who really just hate everyone who happens not to be like they are.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Having said that, I think we are conditioned to believe that m/f couplings are the way to go, or at least we have been in the past, and it will be interesting to see how the next few generations develope as sexual orientation becomes a less taboo subject.

I think as far as lesbians and gays go it won't change, somewhere between 3% to 10%, my feeling is more like 3% or 5% has been the percent of the population that has always been lesbian or gay. But I think you'll see a lot more bisexual people. Look at our culture, it seems to me Bisexual Women are the media darlings of the day. But for men it's just the opposite, which is such a shame.

 

[the captians wench]

"if sexual orientation was somthing you were born into, then there would be a biological way for same sex couples to reproduce with out modern technology"

I disagree, completely, because that's not how evolution and genetics actually work. They're a big snarled mess that don't move neatly toward traits, the way Darwin 101 used to argue - genes move around, that's pretty much it, and some of it works and the pools that avoid genetic disasters go on to mutate another day.

Then again, I wonder about this whole idea of "orientation" as a way to justify heterosexuality as a pure norm altogether, when we're probably running 90 percent flexible and the real human "orientation" is pretty much "slutty fucker." Everything that makes an individual think twice before humping is probably conditioning.

I believe there's a perfectly compelling reason for people and social animals to have a few individuals less likely to reproduce to be biologically insured in a population. You're in trouble when adults get too outnumbered. This is the theory with birds and it makes total sense with humans.

I can see this. There are also adaptations that prove ineffectual and so are weeded out over time, or so the story goes, but these recessive traits to tend to pop up again every few generations or so.

So along with things such as PCOS and low sperm counts, tweeking people to be attracted to the same sex more than the opposite could also be natures own population control. That is an interesting concept.

I think nature/nurture of sexual variance is like spark and fire in a way. Whether that spark of inborn desire becomes actual behavior or not depends on factors and conditioning and conditions and the rest of the individual's characteristics. How much misery is caused by derailment depends on how strong the trait, how that derailment is inflicted, how flexible the system is.

For some reason this makes me think about my little sister (age 16) and my niece (age 8) and their travels into sexual identity. My little sister has always played with the idea of girls kissing each other with a some what bashful curiosity. I walked in on her playing with my The Sims game and making all of the girl sims "woohoo" with each other while ignoring the boy sims altogether.

My niece on the other hand asked for boy dolls for Christmas because her and her friend wanted to practice kissing but all that they had were girl dolls, and when her friend kissed the girl dolls "that was gross".

I'm sure there is a whole lot more involved, but your statement made me think of this comparison.

May I speak, as I'm one of those born this way people you tend to think maybe isn't and being also I'm an identical twin. In your saying we may not be so identical I have to agree, my sister and I are very identical on the outside, even now, although she is somewhat heavier than I am but she's carried two children and I have not. In other ways we aren't very identical, I'm very musical, I played the piano before I was four. I hear, taste, smell and feel music it wasn't until I was older that I became aware that most people only hear music. Whereas my sister won't even sing, because she always sings off key. I have a learning disability, whereas my sister does not, as a matter of fact she's quite brilliant. That said we still share exactly the same DNA.

Until about two years ago my sister would have told you she was hetero. Which she wasn't, she was in denial, it's complicated but does have to do with our Father, a man who loved us both, at least until I came Out. I'm sure the pages I'd need to explain the reasons would not really interest you. Since our Father passed away about 2 1/2 years ago she is free of that burden. So after 2 failed marriages, engaged to marry a third man, she is now in love with and living happily in sunny California with another woman. So yes we were born this way!

I'll surely listen to whatever you have to say about environmental reason. But many people suffer the same type family environment and the vast majority do not become lesbian or gay. Maybe it's those nurture things that make so many people hetero. Or maybe god just made some of us special.

I was going to site many web pages having information on gay twin studies but I think this one
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus3.htm is the easiest to understand. It's not really a religious site per say but it's all explained in the 'About Us' statement. Beside it kinds of kicks the hell out of those conservative Christians. You know the ones, hate the sin but love the sinner. Who really just hate everyone who happens not to be like they are.

This is why I posted this topic here. I knew I would get a much wider demographic than that of my classroom. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Dyslexicea]

but I do feel as if sexual orientation was somthing you were born into, then there would be a biological way for same sex couples to reproduce with out modern technology. Now this is not taking into consideration those additives mentioned above, but simply reproduction organs.

I won't speak for gay men, as I can see there may be a problem with getting their little thingy hard. Lesbians, before modern technology, would have reproduced just the same way as any other woman, the only difference would have been she may have found it repugnant, but with most men, at least as I understand it, it doesn't take very long, and although I am rather inexperienced with men, I'm not gold star, so for the most part I think most men don't last that long.

So she would have passed on her genetic make up to her offspring and most researcher who believe being gay is genetic also believe the gene is passed on by the female, not the male. If they are right evolution would not have had much, if any, effect on the gay gene. There are also many theories as to why in some cases the gay gene fires, shall we say, and in other cases it does not but regardless if she is lesbian or not, she may pass that gene on to her daughter who may be a lesbian, or son who may be gay. We are surely complicated creatures, both genetically and mentally, no one really has all the answer. Personally I hope we never do!

 

[bhndblueyes88]

"if sexual orientation was somthing you were born into, then there would be a biological way for same sex couples to reproduce with out modern technology"

I disagree, completely, because that's not how evolution and genetics actually work. They're a big snarled mess that don't move neatly toward traits, the way Darwin 101 used to argue - genes move around, that's pretty much it, and some of it works and the pools that avoid genetic disasters go on to mutate another day.

Then again, I wonder about this whole idea of "orientation" as a way to justify heterosexuality as a pure norm altogether, when we're probably running 90 percent flexible and the real human "orientation" is pretty much "slutty fucker." Everything that makes an individual think twice before humping is probably conditioning.

I believe there's a perfectly compelling reason for people and social animals to have a few individuals less likely to reproduce to be biologically insured in a population. You're in trouble when adults get too outnumbered. This is the theory with birds and it makes total sense with humans.

I think nature/nurture of sexual variance is like spark and fire in a way. Whether that spark of inborn desire becomes actual behavior or not depends on factors and conditioning and conditions and the rest of the individual's characteristics. How much misery is caused by derailment depends on how strong the trait, how that derailment is inflicted, how flexible the system is.

I know there's been some research into observation of the apes and they've found that there are "aunties" that exhibit more lesbian behaviors (I don't the details and I do wonder about what they are defining as lesbian behaviors and how they're extending that into labeling) who's role is to care for the young either when parents are away or when parents die. There are also numerous examples in a number of species as same sex "couples" that adopt young. Even if these are actions that are being anthropomorphized to accomodate human research, it does suggest a very productive role for same sex couples in the human ecology.

Also, you make the comment that humans just want to hump EVERYTHING and we're conditioned by society as to the where/how/why. This made me think of the bonobos and how they've been observed to use sex pretty much as a social tool amongst all individuals to for social bonding, conflict resolution, etc...etc...

I don't know if Darwin 101, in it's true form (as opposed to the commonly assumed understandings) actually suggests a neat linear genetic evolution. To my understanding, all darwin and peers suggest is that beneficial genetic traits tend to increase in prevalence, and detrimental genetic traits tend to decrease in prevalence. I don't believe they say anything about traits that are neither particularly beneficial OR particularly detrimental.

In other words, I don't think it's actually stated that all traits have some benefit to survival. Just that beneficial traits are more likely to be sustained in the genetic pool. It may be that I'M the one with the inaccurate understanding, though, so feel free to correct me

 

[Netzach]

I know there's been some research into observation of the apes and they've found that there are "aunties" that exhibit more lesbian behaviors (I don't the details and I do wonder about what they are defining as lesbian behaviors and how they're extending that into labeling) who's role is to care for the young either when parents are away or when parents die. There are also numerous examples in a number of species as same sex "couples" that adopt young. Even if these are actions that are being anthropomorphized to accomodate human research, it does suggest a very productive role for same sex couples in the human ecology.

Also, you make the comment that humans just want to hump EVERYTHING and we're conditioned by society as to the where/how/why. This made me think of the bonobos and how they've been observed to use sex pretty much as a social tool amongst all individuals to for social bonding, conflict resolution, etc...etc...

I don't know if Darwin 101, in it's true form (as opposed to the commonly assumed understandings) actually suggests a neat linear genetic evolution. To my understanding, all darwin and peers suggest is that beneficial genetic traits tend to increase in prevalence, and detrimental genetic traits tend to decrease in prevalence. I don't believe they say anything about traits that are neither particularly beneficial OR particularly detrimental.

In other words, I don't think it's actually stated that all traits have some benefit to survival. Just that beneficial traits are more likely to be sustained in the genetic pool. It may be that I'M the one with the inaccurate understanding, though, so feel free to correct me

No that's totally spot on.

I'm a huge Stephen Jay Gould fan - his whole oeuvre focused on how the move away from failure is underemphasized in study and the move toward obvious solutions to problems has been overrated.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

No that's totally spot on.

This is totally off topic, but after my day of giving a lot of wrong answers, this little sentence made me SO HAPPY

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I did experiment when I was younger ... but I just always felt that something was missing.

Sorry, but I couldn't help but emit a patented CM/BiBunny *snort* when reading that...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Having had several gay and lesbian friends I can confirm that there were things in their past, be it an overbearing or an uber needy mother, an absent/abusive father, or just having all one gender siblings.

Everybody has family issues. I don't know a single person who has a completely "normal" family. That's like having 2.3 kids.

If you look at a gay person's family history, you can always find something that can be interpreted as a "cause" for homosexuality. But if I want to go look at my straight friends and find evidence for my theory that heterosexuality is caused by family issues, that's just as easy to do.

Parents in a close and loving relationship? Jane's heterosexuality is based on the behaviour they've modelled for her.

Parents divorced, living with father? Bob's heterosexuality is driven by the need to compensate for the female contact that was missing in his childhood.

Parents divorced, living with mother? Bob is fixated on women because he didn't have enough of a male role model in his childhood.

...and so on.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Everybody has family issues. I don't know a single person who has a completely "normal" family. That's like having 2.3 kids.

If you look at a gay person's family history, you can always find something that can be interpreted as a "cause" for homosexuality. But if I want to go look at my straight friends and find evidence for my theory that heterosexuality is caused by family issues, that's just as easy to do.

Parents in a close and loving relationship? Jane's heterosexuality is based on the behaviour they've modelled for her.

Parents divorced, living with father? Bob's heterosexuality is driven by the need to compensate for the female contact that was missing in his childhood.

Parents divorced, living with mother? Bob is fixated on women because he didn't have enough of a male role model in his childhood.

...and so on.

The human brain strives to make associations that do not exist in a desperate attempt to develop a pattern to recognize. Super helpful for not being eaten by lions and to find food. Not so helpful for complex social interaction.

 

[graceanne]

How many straight women have I heard this from. It's almost a meaningless sentence to me, being bisexual-- but, there it is. You say it, I gotta believe you.

As background, for me, you have to understand that I was raised to hate men. I was ... six? ish? The first time my mom told me that men only want you for one thing. I was not allowed to go over to friends houses if they had dad's cause I might get molested. By the time I was 8 I wasn't allowed to hug men I'm not related to because they were just hugging me so they could push my breasts against their chest (or so she said). And honestly, the men she dated didn't do anything to teach me that men weren't useless pieces of crap. They were all deadbeats with miscellaneous addictions who hated me.

The truth of the matter is that women can be sexist, too, and I am. If we're at church, I always sit on the outside so that I won't accidentally have to sit by a man I don't know. I rarely have male friends - in fact I'd say Bett is it and the only reason that works for me is because it's online. In real life it wouldn't happen, cause I am very uncomfortable around men, and I avoid them if at all possible. Heck, I failed my driving test the first six times because my tester was a man and I couldn't concentrate with a man I didn't know in my car. I got a female tester and ... no mistakes!

 

[Paul_Chance]

I never questioned my primary sexual orientation (hetero) from the point of my sexual awakening at the entry to puberty - and I've never questioned it as I have gone through life. I do think sexual orientation and who you have sex with aren't necessarily tied together - the first is that deep, core biological urge - the second is simply how you attain pleasure. Sometimes they line up, sometimes they don't. (And that is what makes me easy. )

 

[Bramblethorn]

I believe there's a perfectly compelling reason for people and social animals to have a few individuals less likely to reproduce to be biologically insured in a population. You're in trouble when adults get too outnumbered. This is the theory with birds and it makes total sense with humans.

Even if homosexuality isn't advantageous to the species, there are a couple of other reasons why non-advantageous traits don't always get eliminated from the gene pool, too.

Sometimes they come as part of a package deal. The textbook example is sickle cell anaemia: one copy of the gene gives partial protection against malaria, two copies lead to serious health problems including increased vulnerability to malaria, so you end up with an equilibrium level that's a tradeoff between malaria and sickle-cell disease.

Sometimes there's no viable pathway to eliminate them. The process of evolution is a bit like trying to modify a car while you're driving it down the highway: sure you'd be better off without that flat tire, but if you try changing a tire while driving you're not going to live long enough to enjoy the benefits.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The human brain strives to make associations that do not exist in a desperate attempt to develop a pattern to recognize. Super helpful for not being eaten by lions and to find food. Not so helpful for complex social interaction.

Ain't that the truth!

 

[JMohegan]

This was an interesting topic in my Psych of Gender class.

The discussion covered how the outlook of the researcher shapes not only the outcome, but even the direction of the study. In this example the question was asked, "why do we have studies on why a person is homosexual, or bi-sexual? Why not ask ' why are you heterosexual?'."

The answer is of course because the researchers are heterosexual, and so they feel as if any other type of sexuality is weird/different/interesting. We only research things that are interesting to us. Makes sense.

But I thought I would put it out here anyway. Answer the question, or comment on something I said, or gum. What ever, I'm easy.

You're asking two different questions here, cw.

Q1: "Why are you heterosexual?"
A1: My best guess is, born that way.

Q2: "When did you first figure out that you were heterosexual?"
A2: I guess you could say I first figured out I was hetero when I learned that some people weren't.

A third question would be: "When were you first aware of yourself as a sexual being?" Since you're not asking this question, I won't answer except to say: Much earlier than the time referenced in A2, above.

 

[Stella_Omega]

As background, for me, you have to understand that I was raised to hate men. I was ... six? ish? The first time my mom told me that men only want you for one thing. I was not allowed to go over to friends houses if they had dad's cause I might get molested. By the time I was 8 I wasn't allowed to hug men I'm not related to because they were just hugging me so they could push my breasts against their chest (or so she said). And honestly, the men she dated didn't do anything to teach me that men weren't useless pieces of crap. They were all deadbeats with miscellaneous addictions who hated me.

The truth of the matter is that women can be sexist, too, and I am. If we're at church, I always sit on the outside so that I won't accidentally have to sit by a man I don't know. I rarely have male friends - in fact I'd say Bett is it and the only reason that works for me is because it's online. In real life it wouldn't happen, cause I am very uncomfortable around men, and I avoid them if at all possible. Heck, I failed my driving test the first six times because my tester was a man and I couldn't concentrate with a man I didn't know in my car. I got a female tester and ... no mistakes!

Yet you are heterosexual. No matter how many men have screwed you over, it's simply not possible to explore any other gender combination.

I am not blaming you, are saying that's dumb or nothing like that-- like I say, I hear it a lot. It's quite remarkable, really.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Yet you are heterosexual. No matter how many men have screwed you over, it's simply not possible to explore any other gender combination.

I am not blaming you, are saying that's dumb or nothing like that-- like I say, I hear it a lot. It's quite remarkable, really.

I curious as to what makes it remarkable, if you would care to elaborate on that.

 

[the captians wench]

You're asking two different questions here, cw.

Q1: "Why are you heterosexual?"
A1: My best guess is, born that way.

Q2: "When did you first figure out that you were heterosexual?"
A2: I guess you could say I first figured out I was hetero when I learned that some people weren't.

A third question would be: "When were you first aware of yourself as a sexual being?" Since you're not asking this question, I won't answer except to say: Much earlier than the time referenced in A2, above.

I'm sure I meant to ask many, many more than two.

I really am enjoying the line of thought that this(these) question(s) have brought up. This is what has made me excited about school.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I curious as to what makes it remarkable, if you would care to elaborate on that.

My statement was about as elaborate as it needs to be, I think.

 

[Netzach]

Yet you are heterosexual. No matter how many men have screwed you over, it's simply not possible to explore any other gender combination.

I am not blaming you, are saying that's dumb or nothing like that-- like I say, I hear it a lot. It's quite remarkable, really.

I think we both probably know lesbians who have never once had a functional relationship in their lives with another woman, yet persist! So goes desire.

Far stranger to me are those who went outside heterosexuality because, sexism. What message does that send to the partner person?

The most committed to that struggle were always the first married with babies after school, while I got shit for still screwing a man, even if everyone was constantly telling me my BF in school was the guy with real feminist cred and not a douchey "nice guy" complex guy. Amazing, that "treating me as more or less as a person first and foremost" trait was part of my attraction.

THOSE girls are all picket fence married, not merely married, which, well, good for them. The sex life as protest thing does not work.

I genuinely am into what I'm into and don't have time for anything else. Absolutely most men suck. Ergo, those I want to get close to are few, but not non-existent. Most women also suck, though they're safer to be in proximity with, yet I don't understand them, so I'm close to just a few as well.

 

[beebeeto]

When did I figure out I was hetero?

I've always thought of myself as hetero until the other day.

Walking in front of me was an attractive young couple,the woman was wearing a short skirt and semi high heels.Her hips flowed so nicely into her waistline.Her blond hair was gathered up in a clip.

I wished I could have slid my hand in between her thighs,in that area shielded by the skirt,I thought I would rather find out she not have shaved,hunting for her clit with my tongue while passing a hand through her curly pubic hair seemed more exiting...then I had to cross the road

I'm 38 ,never really thought that way about another woman.

So I'm just a bicurious n00b.

 

[Shankara20]

So when did you first figure out that you were heterosexual?

The same time I decided I was Catholic - a bit before birth.

It was years later I discovered I was in error. That I indeed did not believe most of what the Catholic church requires and that I indeed at times I like to have sex with people having the same sort of "equipment" I have.

Gender assignment, sexual orientation assignment and religious assignment at birth all do a disservice to the kid.

 

[Shankara20]

I was at a seminar on bisexuality a while back, and the term "monosexual" got used. The opposite of "bisexual" is "monosexual," which might be same or opposite-sex, but is inflexible. Another useful concept!

Monosexual? hmmm, I can see that as a useful term.

Thanks

 

[ThoMac_13]

Is there any reason to think there is a gender divide here--a greater flexibility say in female sexuality than in male sexuality, or the reverse?

I was certain that I was hetero in my early teens, but I've had gay friends come out as late as mid to late twenties after dating girls.