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

  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date

Clausius2

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,436
5
Moonbear said:
Actually, that's not a very good "biological" point of view. From a biological point of view, one recognizes that non-reproducing individuals in a social species can be highly advantageous. Consider colonies of ants. Only one female reproduces, the queen, the rest are workers that help care for the eggs and larvae and ensure the best chance of survival of those offspring. The same in bee colonies. The same occurs with other social mammals where one dominant female bears the litters and the other females and subdominant males are more like "aunts" and "uncles" that can provide a group effort in raising offspring rather than everyone having to manage to take care of their own. Considering how much effort and energy must be put into raising a human child from infancy to independent adulthood, having members of our society who are non-reproductive yet still feel a desire to nurture those young is beneficial. One doesn't even need to be gay to be non-reproductive. I'm quite straight, and love being around children, but if I never reproduce, I'll be quite content to lavish my nephew with all my love, or perhaps to adopt a child that a heterosexual couple
produced yet was not sufficiently fit to raise.
I understand you, but I keep on thinking it's a right biological point of view. Nature always doesn't make the things right. Sometimes we have children given birth without arms, legs or with some discapacity or wrong deformation. Yeah, they are on earth, and they must be loved as any other human being. They must not be discriminated also. But that was not the original plan of nature for them. Nature wanted to enable them with full extremities, with full capacities, to be able to live in this ecosystem. I don't think those ants are the same thing than an homosexual human being. Sorry if I am being to unpolitically correct, but I usually talk clear as the fairly waters. :biggrin:
 

Clausius2

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,436
5
Moonbear said:
Just because that is ONE function of sexual behavior, it doesn't mean it is the ONLY function.
I haven't expressed it well. I do agree with you. Sex hasn't be designed only for procreate, but it's an essential factor in our lives, isn't it?. We wouldn't be talking if our fathers hadn't sex. If I had to put in order I would put to procreate as the main mission of sex, and next to it the human links as you pointed. This last point has recovered more importance in this last age, because we are less "animalized" than we were 100000 years ago. But the fact the time has passed and we are more civilizated doesn't exclude sex was originally and mainly planned to procreate in our early animal stages.
 
374
0
As others have mentioned, it's extremely simplistic to reduce homosexuality to as simple as "The penis is designed to be inserted into a vagina and result in reproduction, and any sexual behavior that deviates from that is unnatural". Maybe you're right, to some extent, but so what? And where does one put masturbation, oral sex with a female, etc? How about artificial insemination?

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

Clausius2

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,436
5
Anyway, Arildno, you're now 34. Are you planning to adopt some child? That's another point I am interested to discuss. It has been too much polemic here about this stuff last days.

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

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

Danger

Gold Member
9,564
244
Moonbear said:
There are studies showing that sexually dimorphic areas of the brain are more similar between heterosexual females and homosexual males than between heterosexual and homosexual males or females. These are areas of the brain that are influenced by hormones, both during early development and at/following puberty, though which comes first, the brain development or hormonal environment, I don't know.
I've read about that, but just now was struck by another thought. Arildno's description of the "self/not-self" sounds almost identical to my experience with the ADD. My mind would literally divide itself into as many as half a dozen different components and have conversations with itself. (And no component knew beforehand what another was going to say.) It just seemed to be my way of looking at all sides of an issue, but it stopped when I went on the antidepressants. While I'm certainly not suggesting that there is anything mentally wrong with gays, I wonder if there might be a difference in neurotransmitter production as well as the hippocampal etc. structures.
By the way, a lot of women are extremely attracted to gay men. Perhaps not the sort in everyday normal suburban lives, but certainly in the clubs and particularly with late teen-early 20's women.
Also, I have been hit on by several gay men. My response is the same as it is to unattractive women: it's flattering in a way, but I'm just not interested. Doesn't mean that I won't sit and have a beer with them.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
arildno said:
Okay, I'll continue, and here's the first point which I believe is quite differently experienced between straights and gays:
When a gay's feelings starts "awakening, then these are practically always regarded as "other", not parts of your self; they are not regarded as signs that you yourself is changing in any fundamental or frightening way.
You yourself doesn't change a bit by this new mental content.
(That is how it felt for me)

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

Have a totally misperceived straights here?
I think you have ... going entirely on the assumption that I'm not atypical in this way. Nothing in the "me"ness of me changed.

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

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Arildno, you seemed to have specific questions and points you wanted to address. The thread now seems to be sprouting tangents and drifting away along them. If you'd prefer the discussion be specific to your points raised in the OP, this thread should be moved. By opening the thread in GD, I'm assuming you do not have a problem with it running amuck, as it undoubtedly will.
 
374
0
Just one more thought, and I'll stop hijacking: If all males on Earth suddenly became pious and decided to closely emulate the lifestyles of Jesus Christ or the Pope, that would wipe out the human population within 130 years, given their asexuality.
 

Lisa!

Gold Member
601
90
cronxeh said:
Hehe.. I think Dex has an insecure personality and Lisa is simply ignorant of certain things. There are a lot of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom - and there are a lot of animals who have sex not to just reproduce but for pleasure - certain monkeys do it every other minute when they are bored, some do it anally - indiscriminate of the gender or method of delivery.
Hehe..I don'tthink your examples are important because they don't prove anything.I heard about examples in monkies but of course when I was studying about HIV!Who said these animals are normal!maybe it's a kind of sickness.And these people should try to cure their sickness!If scientists think like you , we'll be misrable!
some people are born blind!our Mr perfect cronxeh would search for some examples in animals and say there's no need to find a cure for that because we already have some cases in animals, so it's quite natural.
I would consider homosexuality as a normal thing, if they were able to have a child!So because they can't, I'll be a bit in doubt if it's natural!
It's natural, ok AIDS is a natural thing for humans as well.Who knows maybe HIV is their child!
I have no wish to talk about this subject anymore.So you could think I accept your opinion about homosexuality Mr. knowledgable! :grumpy: because I don't want to hear anymore about this subject!For me homosexuality=HIV!don't try to cure my phobia because you're not a psychologist! :wink:
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Lisa! said:
Hehe..I don'tthink your examples are important because they don't prove anything.I heard about examples in monkies but of course when I was studying about HIV!Who said these animals are normal!
If you think homosexuality in the animal kingdom is restricted to sick monkeys with HIV, you are wrong.

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

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

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

don't try to cure my phobia because you're not a psychologist! :wink:
Cronxeh made no attempt whatsoever, to cure your http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=phobia&x=0&y=0. All he did was correct this patently false statement that you made :
Lisa! said:
Maybe because it seems abnormal since there is no such a thing in nature for example about animals!
when he responded with :
cronxeh said:
...Lisa is simply ignorant of certain things. There are a lot of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom...
This thread is defeating its purpose by "living" in GD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lisa!

Gold Member
601
90
Gokul43201 said:
If you think homosexuality in the animal kingdom is restricted to sick monkeys with HIV, you are wrong.
No,I don't think that!You can search through web and you'l find some articles about HIV and homosexuality!

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

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



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

This thread is defeating its purpose by "living" in GD.
Did you really understand me?When I said I have no more word about this subject and you could think I accept your idea!I meant disregard my post and continue your discussion.and you could think it's kind of phobia that I'm afraid of homosexuality!
I really appreciate it if someone trys to correct my mistake but it's strange when someone do it in this way "Hehe ...Lisa is certainly ignorant of certain things"!I didn't want to come through this thread as I told curious3141 "I'll take a look on your article" but I had to come and clear up things.we should be always open-minded but we have to be careful at the same time.who knows maybe it's a kind of sickness!personaly I have no problem with gays because of lots of reasons!
Thank you for your long list anyway. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I concur with arildno for the most part. For myself, being bisexual, I experienced added confusion because of my misconceived perception of a neat dichotomy in hetero-homosexuality. Something else I would note is that in the absence of a substantial social life (being a geek :tongue2:), I found that my sexuality didn't interfere with it so much - or vice versa - so I managed to develop my identity "piece by piece".

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

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Now, there were a few issues I would like to address concerning "divergent mentalities" as adults, but Moonbear raised a point about gays as "perfect gentlemen" who nonetheless were suspected as being gay before realizing they were.
I would say it is precisely because gays will tend to act like "perfect gentlemen" with women that the perceptive woman in some vague way understands that he is gay.
(I'll leave the whole biology issue aside for now.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Clausius2 said:
Anyway, Arildno, you're now 34. Are you planning to adopt some child? That's another point I am interested to discuss. It has been too much polemic here about this stuff last days.
Adopt a child???
Absolutely not!
If I am to have a child, it is to be my own biological child, sired in the old-fashioned way, to whose well-being and upbringing I would be fiercely committed.

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

If a lesbian I respected very much came to me and asked me to father a child, I would be deeply, profoundly touched by that, and might possibly consent to it.
In no way do I feel this is to compromise my self as gay, after all what I'm about to do is what straights love to say is why they have sex: I would have sex with her with the SOLE purpose of procreation.
 
Curious3141 said:
You've expressed yourself very eloquently. I've had a few gay friends (platonic, of course) in the past, they're nice guys and there was no difficulty in interacting with them. Maybe I just wasn't their type, who knows ? :biggrin:
I have not been particular to homo-sexual tendancies, I have been in the company of many gay people, and I can honestly state that it has been a privalage to have experienced their company and friendship, because they have the same interests and certainly moral(in some case's a higher moral opinion) issue's than everyday condacending folks.

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

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

Clausius2

Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,436
5
No matter what you want to be, you'll be always my on-line norwegian friend! :smile: :!!)
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,542
1,659
I am interested in what is meant by "divergent mentalities".

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

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

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

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

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

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

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Clausius2 said:
No matter what you want to be, you'll be always my on-line norwegian friend! :smile: :!!)
You shouldn't have posted that last smiley, Clausius..:wink:
It impels me to say you are the most handsome guy at PF (no, I have no trouble keeping my hands strictly on the keyboard; I'm interested in men I meet in real life and who are gay like myself).

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

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Astronuc said:
I am interested in what is meant by "divergent mentalities".

The same holds for heterosexual men.

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

At the risk of generalizing, I think single women are looking for that 'perfect gentleman' with whom they can develop a 'secure' relationship in which they can release that primal scream (I'm using arildno's words here). This is the basic mating pattern. If a woman is going to invest in a relationship in which she will bear children, I expect that she will want the man to be around for a long time - i.e. lifetime.
From what I sense, it seems to me that women want to change their lover over time into that gentle, considerate lover, not have him from the very start.
I would think that women do want the impetuousness, impulsiveness and fierce, male passion for her in their lover during the beginning of their relationship (and that is something no gay man can ever provide her with).
That she also wants to get him under her thumb over the years is, of course self-evident..:wink:
 
Last edited:

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Now, I'll briefly sketch what I mean by "divergent mentalities" (not in this post as such, but a necessary introduction).
In order to do so, I have to go back and describe in some further detail how it was for me to stand "outside" those roaring fires, or as Moonbear put it, having my emotions "bottled up".

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Curious3141

Homework Helper
2,830
86
Arildno, do you enjoy Clive Barker's writing ? I enjoy his horror, and also found his depictions of homosexual coupling to be fascinatingly descriptive and evocative (like in his story "In the Hills, the Cities"). I just assumed he was very empathetic. Of course, later he "came out". In hindsight, it should've been obvious.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Curious3141 said:
Arildno, do you enjoy Clive Barker's writing ? I enjoy his horror, and also found his depictions of homosexual coupling to be fascinatingly descriptive and evocative (like in his story "In the Hills, the Cities"). I just assumed he was very empathetic. Of course, later he "came out". In hindsight, it should've been obvious.
I have read quite a bit of Clive Barker, yes; he's a great writer (I particularly enjoyed "WeaveWorld").
His "gay sensibility" is positively pounding throughout his works.
As I hope to show, is how such a sensibility can effectively be "born" out of realizing you're gay, but at the same time show that if we are to be really strict in our categories, it isn't a sensibility necessarily restricted to gays, it is just that the curious development of the gay mind will more easily develop along that track, i.e, it will be more prevalent among gays than straights.
 

arildno

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,948
130
Okay, I'll think I'll start sketching what I mean by diverging mentalities (finally).
These are, of course, only nuances, but all the same, I think there is some validity to it.
I'll start with a tendency in the "gay mentality", and weave into that how I sense the straight mind seems to work.

Now, having that experience of prison walls shattering about you, and suddenly realizing what it means to live, rather than to spend your existence as some pale wraith wandering aimlessly on a bleak shore (which is how your former "life" now appears), wouldn't it seem quite natural that an extraordinarily strong commitment is born that you will never, ever go back there, you will do your utmost to prevent the onset of deadening your own senses?

Furthermore, you will accept with a sense of gratefulness any flickering sensation that enlivens you and invigorates you.
This does not (necessarily) mean that you will not engage yourself in routine-work or chores, i.e, an aversion towards being "serious", but it does mean that you might wish to develop a skill of enjoyment at doing "serious" things.
That is, you are always "on watch" for any opportunity which might arise by which you might feel invigorated.
To me, for example, it seems that straights tend to the opinion "work is to be its own satisfaction", i.e, the invigorating source sustaining you through the work ought to be the work itself.
But to me at least, why can't say the hum of a bee, or a caught strain of a melody downstairs be sources of invigoration in your work as well?
It seems to me that gays tend to flick out their tongues to catch a clear drop of honeyed dew, savour it taste for a half-second, and then, invigorated, delve back into their work again.
It is, to my mind, nothing unserious or insincere about such attitudes, and it certainly won't necessarily reduce their work performance, it might enhance it.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,542
1,659
arildno said:
From what I sense, it seems to me that women want to change their lover over time into that gentle, considerate lover, not have him from the very start.
I would think that women do want the impetuousness, impulsiveness and fierce, male passion for her in their lover during the beginning of their relationship (and that is something no gay man can ever provide her with).
That she also wants to get him under her thumb over the years is, of course self-evident..:wink:
Gee, you're brave with that last statement. :rofl:

I would think that women want both simultaneously - the gentle, kind and considerate gentleman, who can be the impetuous and passionate lover - at the right time. But that's from a male perspective and I would appreciate the womens' perspectives.

Of course, that could also be the attitude of some males to woman. I think such an attitude to other people is destructive/counter-productive to a relationship.

I have never think that a woman would wish to have a man under her thumb - at least, I have never felt I was under any woman's thumb.

I always looked for relationships of mutuality and reciprocity - where both are equal partners.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,542
1,659
arildno said:
Now, I'll briefly sketch what I mean by "divergent mentalities" (not in this post as such, but a necessary introduction).
In order to do so, I have to go back and describe in some further detail how it was for me to stand "outside" those roaring fires, or as Moonbear put it, having my emotions "bottled up".

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

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

Effectively, as I see it now, I held my body in an iron grip; it was not to feel any such symptoms at these times.
My emotions and bodily reactions were effectively delayed, and it was only at night-time, by myself when I visited that fire-chamber that I reveled in the play of the roaring emotions in me.
arildno - if I change 'boy' to 'girl/woman', and and otherwise change 'gay' to 'straight' and 'homosexual' to 'heterosexual', my experience with regard to realizing my sexuality (as regards females) is not so different than your experience (as regards males).

I was reserved - I held myself in check. So you and I are not that different or divergent. I think it more the case that my situation is considered 'normal' by the majority in the culture, while your situation is not.

On the other hand, being gay is 'normal' for a gay person, as much as being me is 'normal' for me.

An amusing anecdote - I did once experience a situation when I had sweaty palms, nausea and my pulse rate hit 180 beats/minute. That was when I asked a certain girl to go with me to my graduation prom (dance) in high school - just before I phoned her. That was so unusual, I was stunned by the experience. Fortunately, she did say yes. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top