Really thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing.Napoleon said:But what I believe is that All human men are born bisexual. Nurture determines it from there.
Look the prostate located in the anal cavity, why? This is why young boys take so much longer to potty train that girls. They actually enjoy holding it in, because it stimulates the prostate and produces endorphin's. Physically all men are bi, and receive sexual stimulation from either type of sex. Women do not receive pleasure from anal the same way a man does. One can not examine the position of the prostate and conclude there is no evolutionary benefit for this.
I am sure this is result of evolution. Populations evolve more quickly when individuals are removed from the gene pool. Those individuals were sexually isolated and find male partners the same way men do when sexually isolated in jail. But more over a young boy can engage in survival sex. And while there is no need for survival sex in modern society thanks to CPS, adoption programs, etc; This was most certainly a survival trait for ancient boys. thus this arrangement benefits both the gene pool and increases the likely hood of individual survival.
I hear you, Slacks. Remember that these studies come out of institutional academia, which is systematically prejudiced against males. And while I'm sure many researchers as individuals recognize and deplore the exclusion of straight males from their research, they still have to pursue funding for it. There are few funds available to study abused straight males, because as we are the "most privileged" group in the world (according to feminist patriarchal theory, to which all institutes of higher learning more or less must subscribe), abuse against us is academically unrecognized and, according to patriarchal theory, generally isn't worth studying since as a group we cannot be oppressed - and in academia, abuse pretty much only "counts" when it's committed against oppressed people.how on Earth could they expect survivors of childhood sexual abuse to give a solid answer one way or another and how could they exclude people who identified as "confused straight" yet needed help?
Like InsideTheWall, to understand my sexual orientation I looked to my thoughts and feelings prior to when I was sexually abused and raped. I remember having intense feelings of friendship with a few boys that I now recognize as crushes or infatuations. The two that stand out are a handsome, rough and tumble, athletic blond boy, and a tall beautiful boy of Italian heritage who played the piano accordion. Looking at these relationships with an adult's eyes, I can see that I was romantically attracted to them, but as a pre-teen and pre-pubescent boy I had no language and no experience for that. There wasn't a hint of anything physical about it. I also remember being drawn to comic book heroes and images of men with heroic proportions to the point where I tried to draw them to recreate what it was I'd seen and felt in those images. Looking back, I think this was the beginnings of my natural sexual desire.I knew I liked guys before the abuse happened, which was in my teens. It made accepting my sexuality much more difficult and largely ruined my 20's.
I am still so incredibly angry about this. I am realizing these researchers I spoke to are the same ones who have teamed up with Male Survivor. Having watched their videos (link on Male Survivor homepage) and considered their lengthy explanations and assurances of inclusiveness, all I can say is there are foundational flaws in their methodology which will negatively impact their study's outcome. It will also negatively impact future attempts at reaching a great many injured men who are already facing enormous barriers to getting help. They are actively alienating male survivors while claiming to create and foster an inclusive community. What a sick joke. Instead of helping shine a light on the full-scope and effect of childhood sexual abuse of men, they are helping drive it further underground. They are seemingly clueless to the magnitude of the deep shame so many men hold and can not express surrounding sexual identity. By creating (and perpetuating) unnecessary divisions within their study, they are warping, distorting, and amplifying the very problem they claim to be wanting to learn more about in an effort to help. They are systematically invalidating some survivors according to labels that are insufficient; they do not allow for fluidity, growth, self-discovery, acceptance of others, and acceptance of self. What an absolute travesty; they are getting it completely wrong. Male Survivor needs to seriously reevaluate their partnering with such an inherently flawed attempt at research. I can't state this strongly enough. WTF?
Wish I could “LIKE” George Martins comment it says it all better than I did.I do not diminish or minimize someone else's reality but insinuating that their sexual orientation is simply a "lifestyle" ... as if it being gay is like putting on and taking of a pair of shoes ... as if it is a choice.
Confusion is created by societies perceptions and beliefs about "being gay". Stereotypes and so on being perpetrated.