I love my parents deeply, and I love God, whether or not a two thousand year old book tells me I go to hell ( after all, test all things, keep that which is good, its in there people).

My life is good, and I still am uncomonly disturbed by the need to discect homosexuals as though we are zoo animals. Whether you do it in the spirit of comparison, comprehending, defense, or attack; still, you discect.

Now, this is what I have to ask you; why?

Why is it dso disturbing for people to recognize a difference among them? Are we so theologically entranced that love thy neighbor and give freely to thine enemies no longer applies?

See, I was raised religiously, in private school, and then later in public school. I have seen both sides of the proverbial coin so to speak.

But you all sit here and just go on and on. Who cares?

If one is unhappy with their sexuality, it is because of causation of environmental factors in their life, ie feeling unaccepted, or being unable to accept themselves. Either they learn to, they struggle all their days, or they work against it actively.

The results are going to be on an individual basis the same as the individuals approach to the problem; and their grasp of their own situation.

Will their ever be a day when people simply stop caring too much?

I would rather see a world in which people are unable to recognize sexuality than this inscect-like approach to the arcan art of psycho-analytical culture.

People, are ever fools, that much is for certain, but whos fool will you be?

I would rather step out of this stupidity and go on living my life happily; and like the rest of you, with a few issues for tissues along the way.

Ignorance is not a crime, only willing ignorance of common-place intelligence. Take a leaf out of my book, and just stop caring about it. It is never and will never be important. Sexuality simply is, as it is; leave it there people

~Will

Haven’t been around for awhile here. Nice to see you still remember me.

Yes, Ann. It’s me.

Oh, this makes me so happy 🙂 🙂 🙂

I know this is off topic but are you the same Evan who lives in Europe that used to post here?

William, what if I tell you that moral compass is inborn like you believe sexual orientation is?

I haven’t actually said that I believe sexual orientation to be inborn, but I may as well come clean and state that I do believe that it probably is. But that’s only what I believe; I can’t state it as a fact. That some people’s orientation appears to be fluid doesn’t contradict this, since I see no a priori reason why a fluid orientation couldn’t be just as inborn as a fixed one.

The concept of an inborn moral compass seems perfectly plausible to me, but I see no reason to suspect that opposition to homosexuality is a manifestation of it. Indeed, the appalling ways in which that opposition has so frequently manifested itself afford a very strong presumption to the contrary. There are some very unpleasant and undesirable traits which are common in human nature, and the desire to stigmatize and to discriminate against those who are different from the majority is one of these.

Among the results, the relation between maternal neuroticism and overprotective parenting style increased among parents of shyer children. As well, maternal agreeableness was more strongly (negatively) associated with the use of a harsh/coercive parenting style among parents of more emotionally-dysregulated children.

This is from the study I mentioned above. Just think about this and look at the other studies on neuroticism, sexual orientation and sexual behaviour. It’s a common element.;)

Imagine the possibilities, if you introduce other factors in the equation, like attractiveness.

I’m sure everyone remembers some discussions on how men find certain types of women attractive and women like some types of men? It’s all based on traits, like physical beauty for women and ability to get resources and healthy physical appearance to men. The more a trait makes a sex more different than the other it can bring some advantages in mating. Different sexes have different traits which are advantageous to mating and the same trait may be advantageous to a sex and negative to the other.

For example: For females, a high degree of attractiveness shows a high degree of sex typicality too, which is an advantage both when they’re girls and women.

The same trait works differently for males, who may be favoured by parents during childhood because of their attractiveness, but are disadvantaged by the trait when they become adults. This must be inserted in the same context of debate on atypicality during childhood and adulthood and how perception of difference can lead to difference in treatment and difference in outcomes. So it’s not just the “psychological” traits which make kids and parents treat differently a boy or a girl, it’s also their physical looks. This is likely to affect how they develop and how they later are perceived as adults. Just remember the popular conception that men who are too attractive must be gay and women who look masculine must be lesbian, but there is also research on “gaydar” which showed that people’s ratings tend to match the sexual orientation of those whom they perceive to be straight or gay. So what makes adults and children treat differently attractive kids may also make them develop atypically which will create atypical adults that are perceived as atypical. But there may also be adult men who have the trait and women who lack the trait and may have developed typically (but this must be studied).

Here’s that topic: /2009/05/18/parenting-homosexuality-and-gender-atypical-behavior/

Back then I wrote (or I thought when I wrote the idea) that this is the reason why they find these counterintuitive facts: recalling the relation as warm doesn’t say anything about it as long as you don’t measure the parent’s own personality, the attachment style in the kid and the kid himself. The son could remember the father as warm because of his own personality or because both were connected by similar traits. I have wrote before that when a father made great efforts to hide his own past atypicality, it is likely to treat the atypical boy either with rejection or with indulgence. Neither provide the atypical kid with adaptive means. Many different types of interactions and pathways can result because of this with both parents and peers. The study didn’t measure that.

I can understand the researchers because they worked with adults and ratings from recalled experience. But they could have marched on to get the whole thing, much like this kind of studies, but including GAB

-doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.011

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174268/

Once they’ll do this sort of studies, they can start making connections by checking:

– early gender behaviour

– parents’ personalities and their interaction with the kid’s personality

– attachment styles

– early social interaction with other types of personality in peers (and feedback with the home environment, how it is supportive or not),

etc.

On the gender behaviour there are tons of research. More recently an interesting one says that both boys and girls prefer dolls to cars at 12-months (10.1007/s10508-010-9618-z). As they get closer to detail, gender differences seem to be learned or influenced by the environment. More to come on that.

The personality probing is highly relevant here because a great number of good studies found that personality dimensions correlate significantly with adult outcomes in mental health. There’s also a great deal of intersection with this region of studies on gender differences and sexual orientation:

*basic differences

– the sexually dimorphic stress response (typically, men = fight or flight, women=tend and befriend)

– the differences in aggresiveness levels (between genders and sexual orientations)

*specific ones

– attachment anxiety, gender nonconformity and peer rejection: the Landolt et al study @ http://www.springerlink.com/content/g2k8r548n3575422/

– the interesting finding that neuroticism and psychoticism are higher in non-heteros than in heteros of both sexes – the study by Zietsch and colleagues.

As these studies show parenting affects dimensions of personality and these dimensions are correlated with many outcomes from mental health to sexuality. This newly published paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/0m435j76mh175837/) found significant association between personality dimensions and sexual (risky) behaviour.

It seems to me that parenting affects some personality dimensions in kids that filter their future adult emotional functioning, which includes mental health outcomes and adult sexual behaviours. What remains to be seen is if these dimensions orient sexual feelings to different sexes if levels variate in both sexes, or if they only correlate with sexual atypicality.

William wrote that one century from now on or less people will look back in horror at how some folks used moral judgement to

I’m certain they will. I wonder which choices they will be most horrified at.