PDA

View Full Version : wow the more older brothers you have the more likelyness of being gay


pengluv
May 18th, 2007, 05:03 AM
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/68/gay_or_straight

wow research shows the more older brothers you have the higher chance of being gay..... but then if you are left handed then that would of not affected the child of being gay wow lol

XaDavK_Kapri
May 18th, 2007, 05:25 AM
Wow. That really does explain everything

¤CharlDa¤
May 18th, 2007, 06:15 AM
Yeah Dave, I mean look at our lil group: I'm not at all an only child, you clearly don't have only a younger sister, Shaun of course doesn't have only a bigger sister and cutie isn't at all the oldest of the family!

fufuqifuqishahah
May 18th, 2007, 06:15 AM
yah i know i saw this earlier what an interesting thing!

my mother's womb hated me :sad:

hehe

esquímaux
May 18th, 2007, 09:06 AM
Complete rubbish.

chapel
May 18th, 2007, 02:26 PM
there are 4 boys in my family. im 2nd. our youngest is left-handed. hm......

...........anyway, what does being left-handed have to do with anything? (sorry, didn't really check out the link ....too lazy)

CooCooCachoo
May 18th, 2007, 02:50 PM
Complete rubbish.

Actually, no, this isn't. There are biological reasons, as the mother produces some sort of hormone during pregnancies or whatever that increases the likelihood of a boy being gay.

Kart
May 18th, 2007, 04:04 PM
Actually, no, this isn't. There are biological reasons, as the mother produces some sort of hormone during pregnancies or whatever that increases the likelihood of a boy being gay.

There's a thread about this from ages back.

There are studies of mounting behaviour in rats corrolated with their exposure to oestrogen in the womb or something like that.

It's been over five years since I read the research so I've probably explained it inaccurately.

GoDominique
May 18th, 2007, 04:07 PM
Yeah Dave, I mean look at our lil group: I'm not at all an only child, you clearly don't have only a younger sister, Shaun of course doesn't have only a bigger sister and cutie isn't at all the oldest of the family!
And of course your group of 4 (four) is representative for whole mankind.

:weirdo:

fufuqifuqishahah
May 18th, 2007, 04:54 PM
my face is representative of mankind. just look at it and u will understand.

¤CharlDa¤
May 18th, 2007, 04:58 PM
And of course your group of 4 (four) is representative for whole mankind.

:weirdo:

Ah one lovely post by GoDom again :D

The thread starter clearly just stated that as a new theory that would explain everything. It might have an influence, but as a gay man with an entourage of gay man, none of them have bigger brothers. Am I saying it's the case for everyone? Clearly not.

And I won't take the retard smiley from you. From other people, meh, why not. But from you? Oh the irony.

GoDominique
May 18th, 2007, 09:54 PM
Ah one lovely post by GoDom again :D

The thread starter clearly just stated that as a new theory that would explain everything. It might have an influence, but as a gay man with an entourage of gay man, none of them have bigger brothers. Am I saying it's the case for everyone? Clearly not.

And I won't take the retard smiley from you. From other people, meh, why not. But from you? Oh the irony.
You should take what you deserve, dumb boy. :)

tennislover
May 18th, 2007, 11:58 PM
OK

on the other hand, the more older sisters you have the more likelyness of being gay
actually little boys tend to imitate sisters, wants to use theirs clothes etc IMHO

VeeReeDavJCap81
May 19th, 2007, 02:25 AM
I've heard this before, but a lot of gay guys I know are the OLDEST not the youngest.

RJWCapriati
May 19th, 2007, 02:42 AM
Hmmmm.......interesting. I know I was born gay.....end of story!!!!!

nflatte
May 19th, 2007, 03:11 AM
I don't believe that genetic traits indicate a person's sexuality. I prefer to think of sexuality as existing on a spectrum; you can be on a particular end of that spectrum, but limiting oneself to liking a particular sex is unjustifiable. Particularly when straight men early on in their lives deny sexual attractions towards the same sex, this goes against the concept of sexual categorization. Humans are so obsessed with categorization that if someone finds it hard to admit their sexual preference, it becomes a problem in society.

Individuals are constantly exposed to different environments from which they perceive things differently. In the case of the twins, I attribute their sexual interests to the "free" upbringing by their mother.

IceSkaTennisFan
May 19th, 2007, 03:25 AM
...limiting oneself to liking a particular sex is unjustifiable.
It's an intrinsic matter, so it requires no justification.

Humans are so obsessed with categorization that if someone finds it hard to admit their sexual preference, it becomes a problem in society.
I agree with you on this, though. In fact, I would go a step further and say that the conditioning of discriminating minorities is an even bigger problem.

Rtael
May 19th, 2007, 03:31 AM
Ah one lovely post by GoDom again :D

The thread starter clearly just stated that as a new theory that would explain everything. It might have an influence, but as a gay man with an entourage of gay man, none of them have bigger brothers. Am I saying it's the case for everyone? Clearly not.

And I won't take the retard smiley from you. From other people, meh, why not. But from you? Oh the irony.


You're a pretentious twat.

nflatte
May 19th, 2007, 03:33 AM
So why do gay men deny having feelings towards women, when some of those feelings might be intrinsically sexual for example? Society forces ourselves to categorize our preference and what we ought to like. The concept of having multiple preferences is largely perceived as something impossible. For instance, bisexual men are often attacked even after categorizing themselves sexually as such just because they "cannot pick a side". This leads people to believe that this notion of duality is imaginary.

IceSkaTennisFan
May 19th, 2007, 03:58 AM
I still don't see why "limiting oneself to liking a particular sex" requires justification. I can't tell you why some people deny feelings towards others, aside from the possibility that they have little to no feelings towards the others? I don't see why it even matters, though. I think there are definitely more important issues in the world aside from who a person likes or does not like. I realize that there is the potential to be there for feelings towards others, regardless of their sex, though. Social conditioning definitely plays a part in it, but a person ultimately believes what they choose to believe. Also, if you question why people limit themself to sex, then it logically leads to questioning why people limit themselves to "liking" humans.

nflatte
May 19th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I still don't see why "limiting oneself to liking a particular sex" requires justification. I can't tell you why some people deny feelings towards others, aside from the possibility that they have little to no feelings towards the others? I don't see why it even matters, though. I think there are definitely more important issues in the world aside from who a person likes or does not like. I realize that there is the potential to be there for feelings towards others, regardless of their sex, though. Social conditioning definitely plays a part in it, but a person ultimately believes what they choose to believe. Also, if you question why people limit themself to sex, then it logically leads to questioning why people limit themselves to "liking" humans.

That's exactly why people should not feel disgusted towards a culture in which liking - or marrying - an animal is practiced. No one says you have to like humans; it's humans who ingrain the idea of what beliefs are appropriate and inappropriate within their society, the standards by which are largely controlled and dominated by Western society. It's all about cultural relativism. The problem within our society is that we try to enforce a particular standard that is considered the norm, creating lots of problems cross-culturally stemming from a notion such as categorization. In short, a person should not be obliged to say they are attracted to a male or a female. Sexuality is actually a fluid concept.

austennis
May 19th, 2007, 04:52 AM
LOL not likely but interesting.. but then i only got 1 older bro and im bi - does this mean if id had 2 id be gay ?

IceSkaTennisFan
May 19th, 2007, 04:54 AM
No, it does not tell me why people should not be disgusted, and your arguments are so concerned with what others are thinking that they undermine the power of the individual to make decisions on their own. Even if people are obliged to say that they are attracted to one sex or the other, what is the harm of that? I agree that we shouldn't judge others, but when you say the problem in society and then relate it back to a "we", I have no idea who the we is. I am very comfortable with saying that I'm gay. I don't care that I'm excluding myself from being with women, b/c there is no harm in it (my own standard). I can be gay and still give others the decency to not judge them for who they are.

nflatte
May 19th, 2007, 05:14 AM
"Even if people are obliged to say that they are attracted to one sex or the other, what is the harm of that?"

People propagate stereotypes all the time when they categorize themselves into different sexual preferences. Inequality also results as a consequence of labeling non-straight communities as a minority. Sure individuals can make their own choices, but the issue at hand is that these choices are often pressured and enforced by society. When I say "we", I refer to the Western society which America adopts of course. I am also comfortable with saying that I'm gay, but whenever I utter that, it seems almost contradictory because although most of my feelings are for men, I can also be attracted to women in some sense. Should I say I'm "bi" then? I don't think so. People would then have the assumption that I like both sexes 50-50.

IceSkaTennisFan
May 19th, 2007, 05:44 AM
But who cares what others think? I don't think that creating stereotypes is a given when labeling oneself. I think labeling gay/straight, etc. is identifying and admitting what one knows to be true about themself - their own interests. Inequality is there whether or not you choose to recognize it. It's not something that magically appears because people label themselves. You can call yourself whatever you want, and it shouldn't matter what others think, because at the end of the day, it's your life to live. Of course, there is peer pressure. Deal with it. Everyone has to deal with that for one reason or another.

nflatte
May 19th, 2007, 05:50 AM
I think to deal with that sort of peer pressure just conforms the standards of our society. The fact that you - or I - feel comfortable with saying "I'm gay" stems from the fact that our society generates these labels. And of course inequality is always in the picture, but the fact that we accept these standards of society just further reinforces stereotypes, creating inequality. For this reason, I choose not to label my sexuality simply because I don't think that at a given point you can be so true and certain about your own self.

¤CharlDa¤
May 19th, 2007, 06:23 AM
WOW today really was let's bash on CharlDa day! Well thank god the day is done now :confused:

Cage
May 19th, 2007, 06:31 AM
Oh so thats why i am gay

IceSkaTennisFan
May 19th, 2007, 06:33 AM
Dealing with peer pressure is a given. Even if you ignore it, that's your way of dealing with it. If we accept ourselves for who we are as liking the same sex or whatever, then we are not accepting the pressure society puts on us to reject being different. Then we are not reinforcing whatever stereotypes you are linking to that pressure. Of course, there's also the pressure to disclose sexual orientation, and it's a personal choice. I think the media really plays to the opposite opinion, but in reality it is a personal choice for most people. I really don't care what stereotypes people put up against me - there are so many. If I waisted my time worrying about all of that, then I would not be happy with who I am.

So I can understand the psychological harms you're talking about, but I don't think your methods are practical. They trivialize social interaction to the point that mere communication can be seen as harmful. It all becomes a slippery slope. It may be realistic for you to live by that philosophy, but people tend to look for a way of dealing with what they are presented, and I think that those problems should be addressed with a practical solution in addition to addressing the big picture.

bionic71
May 19th, 2007, 08:06 AM
I am the eldest and gay.

The label "gay" works for me, I am happy with it...I dont think of myself as gay Shane..I am just Shane....but if someone asks me if I am gay I will answer yes, if I feel that they should know the answer. I just don't consider being gay to be all that important, it is other people that will often find it important or interesting.

I have no control over whether people choose to view me through their own gay prism or stereotypes ..."gay" is merely a descriptor as is "straight". The word "gay" best suits my sexuality...I am not at all sexually attracted to women, never have been.

I could have sex with a woman tomorrow if I wanted to, it does not change my sexuality...I would just be a gay man who had sex with a woman.

Of course many people place conditions on the label... examples being that gay people are somehow incapable of long term relationships or incapable of parenting etc....I openly challenge such misrepresentations. I know plently of people, both gay and straight, who have crap relationship histories and would make dreadful parents....however I know plently of people (gay and straight) that are in great relationships and would be or are already wonderful parents.

Most people with half a brain, or that choose to get to know some gay friends soon realise that most of the stereotypes hold little or no validity....The labels of "gay" , "straight", "bisexual" are themselves self limiting.

Nemesis
May 19th, 2007, 03:46 PM
OK

on the other hand, the more older sisters you have the more likelyness of being gay
actually little boys tend to imitate sisters, wants to use theirs clothes etc IMHO
Well, before hearing about this study (I already read it months ago before seeing it here) I thought it was like this too. I have a younger brother that's gay & I also have an older sister. In our childhood, when my brother played with us, we sisters chose what we played. And that was of course Barbies, puppets, horses, dressing up in our mother's clothes, etc ... Well, we weren't like the typical girls. We tore of the heads of our Barbies & puppets, let 2 Kens fall in love with ech other, etc. :p

But maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe his genes/hormones already decided that he would be gay. And he was just in nature fond of what we were playing.

No Name Face
May 19th, 2007, 04:03 PM
I've read about a biological basis for this --- namely the youngest male who has a lot of brothers may be gay to give the oldest siblings the highest chance to mate. It's sort of like a genetic Darwinism. If the youngest boy is gay, then there is less competition and the lineage continues. I think it's sort of farcical, but there could be some basis for it.