Theory on gay orientation origins

[Lark]

Homosexuality is in its base state already present at birth, but there are also men for whom they may have sexual dysfunctions based on negative experience. E.g. Cases of men whom were abused by their mother tend to abandon heterosexual relations due to view of the female sex. I have also seen/heard of men for whom their father was over baring and their homosexuality is a form of rebellion, for which is sub-conscious in nature. In majority, homosexuality stems from physical differences in the brain and a society that allows their feelings to be free.

I wouldnt argue with the neuro-behavioural explanation.

Those environmental explanations of trauma relating to one or the other parent are interesting, you know the psychoanalytical explanation, which has been rejected here, included Oideopal (spelling) feelings towards the mother which were so strong that the mother became synonymous with all women, hence the aversion to treating them as sex objects, that's the Freudian explanation, attachment theorists would have a similar idea to do with attachment to the mother either being strong or conversely totally deprived and then generalised to all women, finally there is the theorisation that conflicts about respect for or an unwillingness to play an unarguably, frequently dominant role can have an impact on orientation.

Considering the Freudian explanation again, certain fixations, such as anal, oral, genital could account for different sexual behaviours irrespective of an over arching orientation, or be confused for such, that's if you consider Freud's developmental stages theorising to be sound.

Neo-Freudians like Horney would probably accept the internal conflicts theory but consider culture as having a greater part to play and the extent to which repressing feelings due to a hostile, unnurturing early family life has taken place.

Jung would consider that the archetypes for male and female within the person were imbalanced, or constellated in the psyche but not become complexes, and they were seeking in the exterior what they lacked in the interior, so a man with insufficient maleness would seek a male partner or unconsciously become a psychological female, with a homosexual partner who is attracted to the same sexed "female".

Just posting that because I'm not sure if anyone had, a lot of the time people criticise psychoanalysis without a clear idea of what analysts suggested in the first place.

 

[Lark]

Tons of people dispute it. I had an argument with my high school health class teacher about it because he insisted that homosexuality is only a choice. Neither the OP nor anyone else posting here seems to dispute it, but definitely many people do dispute it; they just can't understand why homosexuals don't choose to be straight instead. After all, how could you not like women if you're male? These same people often propose theories of environment that aren't substantiated, and in order for environment to be a known as an influencing factor, we would have to find aspects of environment common to all homosexuals. I don't think such a commonality exists. I don't think sexuality is entirely non-malleable, but I do think that it is for the most part determined at birth, especially when you consider that particular areas of the brain in homosexuals are different than in heterosexuals (at least in males).

I don't think environment is a significant factor for determining one's sexual orientation.

I bolded that because while suggesting that homosexuality is not normative, ie not a socially or culturally determined in its origins, the majority of homosexual welfare and political organisations do as normative agencies.

Consider that someone is experiencing confusion or ambiguity about their sexual orientation, there is no way in God's green earth that any homosexual advice service or similar agency will tell them anything other than they are definitely gay or, at the very, very least, bisexual and they have to deal with it, be out, be liberated etc. That is a functional cultural bias there, involving encouragement of particular behaviour, and not a neutrality based upon knowledge that ones sexual orientation is biologically determined and should be manifest without mistake.

The objective position, from the origins in bio-chemistry etc. stand point, would be to suggest that it is really only a minority of people who experience this condition, that sexual behaviour is not the norm between the majority of people of the same sex. However there's a snow balls chance in hell of that being the position of a gay welfare or political group, let alone a homosexual themselves or, increasingly, a liberal fellow traveller. I've yet to meet an actual homosexual who doesnt take a "dont knock it until you've tried it" or "we're all a little gay" or "nature is bisexual" point of view, perhaps its just wish fulfilment or something on their part anyway, its normative behaviour and a cultural struggle, not the sort of acknowledgement of biological realities which most people suggest is the origin.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Homosexuality is in its base state already present at birth..d.

This is very often asserted, together with the 'genetic explanation' - but is there actually any scientific evidence whatsoever to support it?

Are there identifiable genetic markers that can be tested for?
Are there identifiable developmental markers that can be identified?

It seems impossible to me that so called "genetic homosexuality" should occur at anything other than a slightly higher rate than all forms of genetically or developmental sterility.

 

[Gerard91]

Consider that someone is experiencing confusion or ambiguity about their sexual orientation, there is no way in God's green earth that any homosexual advice service or similar agency will tell them anything other than they are definitely gay or, at the very, very least, bisexual and they have to deal with it, be out, be liberated etc. That is a functional cultural bias there, involving encouragement of particular behaviour, and not a neutrality based upon knowledge that ones sexual orientation is biologically determined and should be manifest without mistake.

To be precise and strict. Original Bible says NOTHING about gay people. It's the effect of future laws. Imagine yourself a situation where a king or other leader has only son who happens to be gay. People are not interested in this in particular, but emperor wants to reproduce his genes. Order son not to act that way? No, make something like marriage and punish gay people so that son won't get dangered by "pregnant-less sex"

 

[bickelz]

I was very sheltered when I was growing up by my father. Had my parents divorced earlier or if he backed off, I would have realized I was gay earlier. Instead, I'm just starting to come out at the end of my freshmen year at college.

Fact is, you're born gay. Your dad nor your mom didn't make you gay. There is no gay gene although there does seem to be some genetic factors involved. There are a few correlations between being gay and certain traits such as left handedness, counterclockwise hair whorl and identical twins both being gay. There are also identical twins who are not the same sexual orientation so it is not entirely genetics.

What seems to be the biggest factor has to do with prenatal hormones trying to "feminize" a male fetus in the womb. Many male proteins are unfamiliar to a woman's body so when she becomes pregnant with a boy, her body attacks it. With the increasing number of male pregnancies a woman has, the more immunities she builds up against these male proteins and hormones and thus becomes better at attacking them and "feminizing" the male fetus. This theory coincides with studies that show the greater number of older brothers you have, the more likely it is that you will be gay.

What is obvious is that it is not a trait that is going away so, evolutionarily speaking, there must be a reason for it.

 

[Lark]

Consider that someone is experiencing confusion or ambiguity about their sexual orientation, there is no way in God's green earth that any homosexual advice service or similar agency will tell them anything other than they are definitely gay or, at the very, very least, bisexual and they have to deal with it, be out, be liberated etc. That is a functional cultural bias there, involving encouragement of particular behaviour, and not a neutrality based upon knowledge that ones sexual orientation is biologically determined and should be manifest without mistake.

To be precise and strict. Original Bible says NOTHING about gay people. It's the effect of future laws. Imagine yourself a situation where a king or other leader has only son who happens to be gay. People are not interested in this in particular, but emperor wants to reproduce his genes. Order son not to act that way? No, make something like marriage and punish gay people so that son won't get dangered by "pregnant-less sex"

I dont remember mentioning the bible? What's the bible got to do with anything?

 

[Peppermint]

This is very often asserted, together with the 'genetic explanation' - but is there actually any scientific evidence whatsoever to support it?

Are there identifiable genetic markers that can be tested for?
Are there identifiable developmental markers that can be identified?

It seems impossible to me that so called "genetic homosexuality" should occur at anything other than a slightly higher rate than all forms of genetically or developmental sterility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Chromosome_linkage_studies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation

 

[the]

Consider that someone is experiencing confusion or ambiguity about their sexual orientation, there is no way in God's green earth that any homosexual advice service or similar agency will tell them anything other than they are definitely gay or, at the very, very least, bisexual and they have to deal with it, be out, be liberated etc. That is a functional cultural bias there, involving encouragement of particular behaviour, and not a neutrality based upon knowledge that ones sexual orientation is biologically determined and should be manifest without mistake.

To be precise and strict. Original Bible says NOTHING about gay people. It's the effect of future laws. Imagine yourself a situation where a king or other leader has only son who happens to be gay. People are not interested in this in particular, but emperor wants to reproduce his genes. Order son not to act that way? No, make something like marriage and punish gay people so that son won't get dangered by "pregnant-less sex"

Confusing post.

 

[bickelz]

Consider that someone is experiencing confusion or ambiguity about their sexual orientation, there is no way in God's green earth that any homosexual advice service or similar agency will tell them anything other than they are definitely gay or, at the very, very least, bisexual and they have to deal with it, be out, be liberated etc.

Nobody encourages being gay though. No help hotline tells you if you're gay. Seriously, Google how to tell if you're gay and the only answer will be that only you can know.

To be precise and strict. Original Bible says NOTHING about gay people.

We don't know what the original bible says about gay people because what we read today is incomplete. The bible is actually fairly ambiguous on this topic. There seems to be equal evidence for Jesus being fine with it and God not liking it. The sexuality of Jesus is also very ambiguous as well.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

What Would Freud Say?

Innate desire for bonding with the masculine intertwined with innate desire for sexual expression.

Heterosexuality is an intertwining of the need for bonding with the feminine and desire for sexual expression.

Potential bisexuality is the norm, associations are formed nurturally.

 

[bickelz]

Now as I am writing I reminded myself of second thing - absence of father at first years of age and women dominance. My father wasn't home often before I turned 4 and I was kind of overwhelmed by women in my life - grandmothers, sisters, mother and female teachers. I felt naturally having contact with them. But when it came to having a girl I just thought more about pleasing other people (because they would be happy to see I have a girl) rather than doing it because I wanted it.

This wouldn't effect your sexuality. It could make it easier for you to be more effeminate but it could work vice versa as well where you have to be the cliched man of the house.

I only have sisters and am the only guy in my generation of cousins and such. But now you're getting into gender identities/expectations which really doesn't have much to do with sexuality. Having dominant females in your life doesn't make you gay because you become subservient to them. Actually, I feel like you'd grow a bigger pair because of it.

But gay people come from so many different backgrounds, it really shows that the family dynamic really has nothing to do with determining sexuality.

 

[bickelz]

What Would Freud Say?

Innate desire for bonding with the masculine intertwined with innate desire for sexual expression.

Heterosexuality is an intertwining of the need for bonding with the feminine and desire for sexual expression.

Potential bisexuality is the norm, associations are formed nurturally.

Well, I feel like what Freud would say in this situation would be a load of bollocks. There is always a desire for same sex bonding, besides the occasional tomboy and ladies man. Homosexuality is just the lack of sexual attraction for the opposite sex. This is more apparent if you extend the definition of homosexual acts and love to just bro bonding. Think the end of Superbad or Pineapple Express. Even though they are goofy, I think they touch on this well: that bro bonding is actually an act of homosexuality. It's strictly Platonic but nonetheless, gay.

I feel like bisexuality is probably the default for a majority of the population but we're brought up to be straight. I think that a lot more people are bi but just don't act on it because of societal norms. It's not a psychological thing like Freud would say. Rather, it is innate.

I'd like to return to what I was saying about bro bonding earlier. It's obvious that men get along with men better and women get along with women better than we do in a hetero friendship simply because we understand each other better. The only reason for hetero relationships is to reproduce but there is so much misunderstanding and miscommunication between genders simply because we think the other is from a different planet. I feel like bro bonding and girl time are more beneficial because love is built upon understanding (that came out of left field). I've heard this somewhere else but apart from procreation, opposite sex hang out time isn't as beneficial to both individuals as same sex hang out time is.

There are problems with this though. Including, specialization of gender roles (in a less industrialized society) and idk what else. Damn I'm tired.

 

[Gerard91]

I reminded myself of another thing - brain structure. Maybe it has something to do in this case? Maybe some peoples brains are constructed in a way that they for example can't recognize opposite sex's pheromones or - in other words - it is easier for brain to get sexually excited about own sex?

About twin theory - my mother had given birth to two twin sisters of mine 9 years before I was born. I was a late born child (2 weeks after the expected moment). My mothers mucus was green at that point (because of advanced decomposition) :S.