Comments on: Multiple factors involved in sexual orientation, part 2

By: carole

carole — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 22:25:45 +0000

The July 1, 2008 thread entitled “Multiple Factors involved in Sexual Orientation, Pt. 2 had lots of interesting, thought-provoking observations from many of you.
I wonder if there will ever be a way to know what a toddler or a baby is thinking, what they are taking in? (Just read an article or two about that). People can talk about their earliest memories, but none can really remember being one or two, what they saw at that age, how they processed what they saw).
I understand that now may not be the time to discuss this, but maybe on another thread we can.
I have to admit, Michael, that your comment that at a very early age (I forget how young, but it WAS young) you put another boy’s penis in your mouth was on my mind as I thought about this. That still astounds me. You didn’t go for his big or little toe (or maybe you did, LOL) but his penis. I was left wondering what gave you , so young at that time, the interest, the urge to do that. (This is not at all a request for you to attempt to explain it since you already said you don’t know why you did it other than you put all kinds of things in your mouth and other than your earliest memories are those of loving the male body. For that matter, I recall eating mud!)
My mention of your comment is only by way of illustrating that the exploration of attraction and our childhood is something worth discussing. Seems that whenever people like the NARTHIANS try to link childhood and sexuality, they try to link it to something bad, something traumatic.
If there is a link (and I am not saying there is but it’s worth discussing) maybe the discussion should center on links to something perceived by the very young child as very attractive and pleasing.

By: Nance

Nance — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:23:17 +0000

This is my question to the study and those that say “nurture” plays a role in sexual orientation.I’m gay and have blue eyes. Did nurture dictate my eye color?
I know without a doubt that no part of my nurture promoted my attraction to men.
By no means do I suggest that I am better qualified according to my education, only by being myself . Thanks

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:52:17 +0000

I would love to see a summit sometime of those on the ex-gay side of things and those of us who are critical — to see if we could find some common ground. It would be a great conference, wouldn’t it?

By: Ann

Ann — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:28:23 +0000

This discussion has made me realize that the ‘in person California vacation rendezvous’ is an offer I must withdraw..
Eddy,
I’m not sure if I understand – have I done or said something that was inappropriate? Please let me know as I don’t want anything the matter between us. I would love to meet you. You and Michael can come over and I will make lunch or dinner if you want. If you just want to come, that is ok too.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:34:53 +0000

Eddy, in all fairness, you went beyond just “wondering and considering”. You referred to it as the “big lie”. If you had just been wondering, why not just ask, “When was that?” I would have answered you honestly and openly
Your tone and wording strongly suggested that you believed I was trying to pull a fast one on you, EXODUS and the general public. I was not .You assumed that I was lying to you and to EXODUS about the “time line”, but I was not lying about any of that.
You jumped to the same sort of conclusion about who spearheaded the Survivor conference, suggesting that I was “spinning” the truth about that. I would have apologized to you for such an assumption, but if you don’t feel the need to, so be it.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:47:32 +0000

Eddy: OK. That will have to do I guess. At least I am on record that Gary and I were not messing around before, during or after the EXODUS conference and that we left EXODUS and came out to our wives the same year we did — 1979.
We could have saved all this time and aggravation by talking or writing to each other when you first started implying that we were lying (over a year ago I think) but I know that for some reason, you preferred to hash out the personal details on the blog. Oh well.

By: Eddy

Eddy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:16:52 +0000

Michael,
In my earlier post, I said I was giving you the last word. I’m not sure why it is that you’re waiting for me to re-engage in that conversation. Does ‘last word’ mean something different to you?
I’ve apologized on this site before; I’ve apologized to you before. If I felt I owed you an apology now, I would. Wondering and considering the possibility are NOT the same thing as presumptions. (LOL! If I presumed those answers, why would I need to ask any questions?) For the false conclusion that I did come to (re your role in the BXG conference), I did apologize.
Ann, Michael
This discussion has made me realize that the ‘in person California vacation rendezvous’ is an offer I must withdraw..
…and once again I’ll try to abandon this detour…

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:43:11 +0000

I am still waiting for some sort of apology from Eddy for his presumptions that (1) Gary and I had “a big secret” when he first met us, (2) that we were lying the entire time we were with EXODUS and (3) that I left EXODUS when “Gary came along” — as though Gary was the only or main reason I left. He was not. I left because I was still gay.
None of Eddy’s “jumps to conclusions” was correct. We had already known each other about four years before that happenened. During the previous four years, we got EXIT off the ground, hosted the first EXODUS conference and lived “ex-gay” lives, faithful to our wives and kids. Our daughters were born during this time, one week apart.
We quit EXODUS the same year we began our affair. I remember it well because it was the same night that “Alient” came out at the cinema near where we were giving our “ex-gay” testimony at a church conference in Indianapolis..: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/releaseinfo.
This was the same conference where we announced that we would no longer be giving “ex-gay” speeches — to the shock of those who had asked us to talk about how we had “changed”. The conference organizers had accidentally put us up in a room with one bed. We went to the movies that night. We told our wives soon after, but our divorces were not final until 1981.

By: Michael Bussee

Michael Bussee — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:26:59 +0000

Evan, you said: “One needs a critical level of gender ‘otherness’ perception in order for attractions to kick in.”
Not if you’re gay, you don’t. A perception of “gender otherness” has the opposite effect on me.

By: Drowssap

Drowssap — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:37:50 +0000

Evan

Could someone make an evolutionary argument for why 1-2% of a population are hit by these disorders?

You can bet that any gene implicated in trouble for 1% to 2% of the population is a susceptability gene, not a disease gene. Disease genes are always rare (roughly 1 in 10,000 people) or group specific. Susceptability genes exist for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons for these genes is immune function. A gene might offer protection from one thing but this protection makes us vulnerable to another.
Example:
Blood type is part of the human immune system. Each blood type is good at protecting us from certain pathogens while not so good at protecting us from others. It’s a trade off.
Example 2:
Hemochromatosis is a genetic “disorder” that’s not really a disorder at all. People with Hemochromatosis genes store extra iron for use during long winters or in places where Vitamin C is scarce. This is a huge advantage in cold climate, hunter gatherer societies. The problem is that in the modern environment neither iron nor Vitamin C are scarce. These people often store too much iron which can lead to increased health problems as they age. Fortunately the cure is simple. All these people have to do is donate blood and they’ll never have a problem.