Gay INTP

[The Gopher]

That being said, I didn't have an ounce of homosexual urge as a child or teen. I'm freakishly straight. I guess someone has to hold up the extreme end of the sexuality spectrum, right? To the point, I know that I couldn't change my sexual orientation if I wanted to. So unless gay people have some amazing power I do not possess, I'd say it's a safe bet that they can't choose to be different either.

I bet we could get at least a little Bi. *runs calculations* Sure it's probably not worth the effort and I don't think you can change just add. (aka if you are gay you can't become straight you can only become both)

I am kinda playing devils advocate here. However people are quite adaptable. (something something Stockholm syndrome) Like I said I do think it's possible however if my theory is correct requires quite an insane amount of time and manipulation.

So no you can't just get up and choose to be different. You also can't choose to lose a side of you. However I am pretty sure with the right torture "emotional encouragement" it's possible.

 

[TheManBeyond]

Since I hit puberty (I'm guessing I was 11 or 12). I tried to keep it discreet since then.

I really liked how my closest heterosexual friends handled it recently. It was insignificant. Not a big deal. They shrugged and said "yeah, okay". Almost as if I stated that I had brown eyes.

There was no fear. There was no awkwardness. Life continued on as usual, and nothing more was expected of me. Except for the fact that I no longer felt that I had to hide. I could be myself.

And this is how I view the subject as well. Sexual orientation should be just a small part of who we are, surrounded by millions of other aspects that make up our personality. Attempting to think of it rationally, I can't see any good reason to make such a big deal of it.

Except for the fact that there are people who do make a big deal of it. As if it's an abomination to life. The fear and hatred towards it. It's essentially made to be a big deal, by those who believe things like people who are left handed are servants of the devil. The confusion that surrounds it somewhat creates significance to the subject.

Well, I came out to the forum. . When I came out to my closest friends and one person of the family, I wanted to be an example that showed them that the stereotypes don't always fit. I aimed to represent 'gay' as someone who can be moderately masculine, calm, serene and drama-free, realistic, intellectual, unobtrusive, and welcoming. Not to say that these are qualities of gay people, but to prove that being gay doesn't have to signify an absence of these characteristics.

loool i should have known! XD
hurray

 

[Jennywocky]

Supposedly, pre-pubescent children can orgasm. I only know this because pedophiles have attested that they have made children orgasm... poor kids

The body is the body. If orgasm was the same as desire, then rape victims (men or women) could never claimed to be raped. The body does what it does if the right stimulation is provided. It is part of why there is such horrific guilt experienced by sexual victims -- "I said no and didn't want it, but it felt good simultaneously and my body responded. WTF? What does that mean? Did I really want? Did I deserve it? Am I trapped in this cage of a body that just does what it wants regardless of 'my' feelings about it?" And so forth.

I also don't think it's prudent to trust peds as to how a child responded to their advances. It's typical for them to imagine that the child desired it and any good physical feelings that the child might experience are used as justification for their advances.

Again, the body responds as it does. Sexual preference desire (where you fixate on a particular target gender as an orientation) is different than just self-stimulation... you rub yourself, it feels good. I think you see this with pedo victims, where their bodies have been stimulated through a sexual abuse scenario, where they will then self-stimulate because of the pleasure factor. It's the same as any other physical desire that feels good.

I bet we could get at least a little Bi. *runs calculations* Sure it's probably not worth the effort and I don't think you can change just add. (aka if you are gay you can't become straight you can only become both)

I am kinda playing devils advocate here. However people are quite adaptable. (something something Stockholm syndrome) Like I said I do think it's possible however if my theory is correct requires quite an insane amount of time and manipulation.

So no you can't just get up and choose to be different. You also can't choose to lose a side of you. However I am pretty sure with the right torture "emotional encouragement" it's possible.

You'd have to differentiate between normal orientation and "adapting to make do" with a situation, like prison.

As TMills said, it's all bullshit anyway. Who really cares what someone's orientation is, as long as it's with an adult who can provide consent and the relationship is emotionally healthy? (Healthy boundaries, sacrificial love, commitment, and so forth.) Straight or gay or bi... whatever. The negativity is driven by fear. I'm not sure otherwise why anyone cares who anyone else of consenting age is in a committed partnership with.

 

[joogabah]

Are you sure that's the Judeo-Christian deity? How does Christ fit into this picture? What happens to the Holy Spirit? i.e. the Trinity?

I've had the same thoughts as yours (your entire post there), but I know that if God is bigger, than he's bigger than any theory that we (well Freud and Marx to be exact) are able to come forth with. I don't see how merely language accounts for the workings of God in the Christian ontology.

Christ is Logos or Word/Reasoned Argument. There is no Trinity in the bible. That is a pagan corruption. 1 John 5:7 is missing in older manuscripts.

 

[joogabah]

Similar to Lot's post. I'm essentially heterosexual. All of my friends were in my University's LBGT community for a few years though, so I had the chance to experiment and found I could be physically attracted to men if there already existed a close enough emotional bond between us. I've tended to form 'crushes' on other guys in these circumstances since then.

In honesty, except in a polyamorous situation, I doubt I would have a romantic relationship with another man, just as I know my attraction to females is more naturally intense, which makes it unlikely to be sustainable. Sex as an extension of close friendship I'd definitely do though.

What is the distinction between a romantic relationship and a close friendship with sex? Is it limerence? But that is just an involuntary psychological reaction to ambivalence. It causes a lot of emotional volatility, and is better avoided. Or is the distinction the commitment to stick around or share a household? Conjugal "duties"?

 

[The Gopher]

As TMills said, it's all bullshit anyway.

Yeah of course it is. I just have this problem being told something is impossible. (ENTP syndrome?)

 

[joogabah]

I'm not sure how you can say a language predates the speaker. Language only exists to benefit the speaker. Maybe the idea of language was a potentiality within the universe, and then we came along to fulfill it. But not much more can be said about it.

Language doesn't predate the speaker? We speak English. It is much older than anyone on this forum. It forms a disembodied set of associations and classifications that we are programmed with (e.g. "homosexuality" - which English acquired in the 1890s, and without which, we wouldn't be homosexual, just as the ancient Greeks were not homosexual. The same goes for "aspergers", "schizophrenic", "aryan", "white", etc).

I notice you criticize my writing style and the perceived banality of my remarks. I'm curious as to your thought process and the motivation behind actually writing that and posting it.

 

[joogabah]

Honestly, you knew when you were 6 years old.
wtf comon man...
I dont know it almost feels like people think of them as a part of the LGBT community just because it is a 'rebellious' thing to do.
Just like most of the people here identify themselves as 'asexual' because thats way cooler than being straight.

idk, but i dont think a 6year old really understands things enough to make such a decision.
It feels like there are many that identify themself as part of the LGBT community just because it is a way to break the social norm.

This and people doing stupid things like "bug chasing" just because they want to stand out is one of the reasons most of us are slightly homophobic.


PS, im not really against anyone's own preferences, but a 6 year old identifying himself as part of LGBT is just a bit too far, i mean he doesnt even know what straight means, then what do you mean by being gay..
like did you realise it even before meeting kids in school..?

I am homosexual. I do not like the association of gayness with hedonism. It is there, and it actually makes gay liberation into more of a gay ghetto that scares away people with self discipline and integrity, who aren't looking for commercial sex and hookups.

It is time to jettison the gay identity. Homosexual desire is a potential inherent in everyone. If it weren't, there wouldn't be such a massive effort on multiple fronts to prevent it. The gay identity is one of these fronts.

 

[joogabah]

for the record,
I have memories of having some kind of urge(s) at 7. It was probably sexual, though I'm not sure. It felt like I was slightly turned on and wanted something, but I wasn't sure what it was as I didn't know how to relieve it or have any sexual feelings towards gender. It just would happen sometimes and then it would go away.

edit:
Supposedly, pre-pubescent children can orgasm. I only know this because pedophiles have attested that they have made children orgasm... poor kids

Of course they can orgasm. Didn't you masturbate as a kid? I can't remember when I started, but I remember getting in trouble for trying to show it to one of my friends after I discovered it. I was only 5 or 6 and didn't realize that was "inappropriate". That started a war with my mother, who would try to catch me and the punishment was the belt. That might have contributed to my gayness.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Christ is Logos or Word/Reasoned Argument. There is no Trinity in the bible. That is a pagan corruption. 1 John 5:7 is missing in older manuscripts.

Hmm, I see. This topic in itself is worth a discussion, but it'll probably warrant a separate thread.

On the topic of language, I think the studies linguistics are doing now to find the origin of language should be of interest to you. It's one of the hardest questions to unravel, or so they say.


And JennyWocky is just skeptical is all, no need for defense. She usually is direct. ^_^

 

[Jennywocky]

Language doesn't predate the speaker? We speak English. It is much older than anyone on this forum. It forms a disembodied set of associations and classifications that we are programmed with (e.g. "homosexuality" - which English acquired in the 1890s, and without which, we wouldn't be homosexual, just as the ancient Greeks were not homosexual. The same goes for "aspergers", "schizophrenic", "aryan", "white", etc).

Umm... read for context?

You seemed to be saying language predated humanity, so that's what I was addressing. Obviously language predates anyone on the forum; why would anyone suggest otherwise?

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying and/or you weren't clear about what you meant.

I notice you criticize my writing style and the perceived banality of my remarks. I'm curious as to your thought process and the motivation behind actually writing that and posting it.

Umm... "perceived banality"?

I think my only point was that your style can be needlessly complicated, when the point of communication is to put things in a form that readers can understand. Needlessly complicating discussion (1) creates unnecessary confusion / bad dissemination of ideas and (2) creates unnecessary obstacles to people engaging you.

 

[joogabah]

I knew I liked the opposite sex before age 6, so why wouldn't a gay person know they like the same sex?

Also a lot of the genetics of homosexuality has been studied pretty extensively. It's something that can be known or inherent to a person's identity as young as the age of 3.

Study 1

Study 2

Lots more to be found as well.

A linguistic construct that is barely 100 years old cannot be genetic. Same sex sexuality is universal in cultures existing today. Everybody knows about its universality in Greece. So whatever they are measuring that they believe to be genetic, it is not capacity to love and desire physical intimacy with the same sex. That is genetically universal in all individuals.

The political expediency of the "genetic" argument is that it allows homophobic straight people to get close to gay people without any fear that they might awaken their own homosexuality. They can tell themselves it is biologically impossible. That gives gay people breathing room. But it isn't 1972 anymore.

 

[joogabah]

Just saying first, there are those who have had sexual or proto-sexual experiences at far too early ages. Some children already have the "benefit" of hindsight to help them know their sexual orientation. There is also a matter of observed/perceived gender roles and one's own identity within them. My gender identity matches those I observed during childhood well enough for everything to have seemed unquestioningly "normal" and "obvious". I can only imagine how it would feel to see stark differences between the familiar roles in my environment, and my own inclinations. It's logical to assume that it would lead to a much younger age of orientation awareness.

That being said, I didn't have an ounce of homosexual urge as a child or teen. I'm freakishly straight. I guess someone has to hold up the extreme end of the sexuality spectrum, right? To the point, I know that I couldn't change my sexual orientation if I wanted to. So unless gay people have some amazing power I do not possess, I'd say it's a safe bet that they can't choose to be different either.

These desires are formed based on what you fantasize about during masturbation as a child and adolescent. The fact that masturbation is a same sex activity seems to demand a homosexual component, but not a heterosexual one. I believe the repression of homosexual desire in straight people's minds is simply an internalization of the anti-homosexual rhetoric that is still extant today, only now as an identification with sexual hedonism and a lack of rational restraint.

 

[joogabah]

I bet we could get at least a little Bi. *runs calculations* Sure it's probably not worth the effort and I don't think you can change just add. (aka if you are gay you can't become straight you can only become both)

I am kinda playing devils advocate here. However people are quite adaptable. (something something Stockholm syndrome) Like I said I do think it's possible however if my theory is correct requires quite an insane amount of time and manipulation.

So no you can't just get up and choose to be different. You also can't choose to lose a side of you. However I am pretty sure with the right torture "emotional encouragement" it's possible.

I agree orientation cannot be chosen. It is unconsciously cultivated with experience (including fantasy long before one's first sexual experience with another person). Like learning a language, what one has done in childhood and adolescence will be "native" and undoable. Any new forms will be expressed through the prism of the original, the way a second language learned in adulthood has an accent.

 

[joogabah]

As TMills said, it's all bullshit anyway. Who really cares what someone's orientation is, as long as it's with an adult who can provide consent and the relationship is emotionally healthy? (Healthy boundaries, sacrificial love, commitment, and so forth.) Straight or gay or bi... whatever. The negativity is driven by fear. I'm not sure otherwise why anyone cares who anyone else of consenting age is in a committed partnership with.

One cares about orientation if one is not looking at it from the perspective of individualism, but from the perspective of social control and economic necessity. This is the basis for the slogan "the personal is political".

 

[joogabah]

Umm... read for context?

You seemed to be saying language predated humanity, so that's what I was addressing. Obviously language predates anyone on the forum; why would anyone suggest otherwise?

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying and/or you weren't clear about what you meant.

Umm... "perceived banality"?

I think my only point was that your style can be needlessly complicated, when the point of communication is to put things in a form that readers can understand. Needlessly complicating discussion (1) creates unnecessary confusion / bad dissemination of ideas and (2) creates unnecessary obstacles to people engaging you.

I said that language predates the speaker.

May I criticize your writing style or would you be opposed to that? Might you find it off topic, or suspect it of being a diversionary tactic? What do you anticipate your emotional reaction would be?

The psychological effect (even if unconscious) is to prejudice other readers. That is why I am curious as to your motivation, as I find it hard to believe that anyone would welcome such a remark.

I have no interest in winning an argument.

 

[Jennywocky]

I said that language predates the speaker.

May I criticize your writing style or would you be opposed to that? Might you find it off topic, or suspect it of being a diversionary tactic? What do you anticipate your emotional reaction would be?

So I provided a ton of input on your ACTUAL ideas in the thread (did anyone else even directly go through the bulk of your posts and respond to many of your points?), and instead you're obsessing on the comment I made about how your writing style was unnecessarily complicated, with the intention that maybe it would help you get more feedback if you considered your audience, and ignoring everything else I said?

Um, okay.

The psychological effect (even if unconscious) is to prejudice other readers.

Considering how that was only a small portion of my actual input to what you shared, I would think I prejudiced people more to take you seriously.

Think about that a bit, won't you?

I have no interest in winning an argument.

Then why did you start THIS one?

Anyway, I was more interested in your ideas about homosexual formation and how that intersects with your identity. I rarely engage nowadays, so when I do, it means I'm taking your comments seriously and was curious about what you posted.

If you have no more interest in that, it's fine to just stop interacting.

One cares about orientation if one is not looking at it from the perspective of individualism, but from the perspective of social control and economic necessity. This is the basis for the slogan "the personal is political".

That's rather obvious. The question is more, which manner of framing (when they conflict and can't readily coexist) is more pertinent and relevant for the culture in question.

The answer won't necessarily be the same for a culture at different periods in its existence.

 

[Sinny91]

These desires are formed based on what you fantasize about during masturbation as a child and adolescent. The fact that masturbation is a same sex activity seems to demand a homosexual component, but not a heterosexual one. I believe the repression of homosexual desire in straight people's minds is simply an internalization of the anti-homosexual rhetoric that is still extant today, only now as an identification with sexual hedonism and a lack of rational restraint.

I never masturbated as a child or adolescent.
And although it's a subject I find somewhat distasteful and cringe worthy.. For the sake of this discussion... If I do masturbate, I certainly do require a visual of the opposite sex.

Have you come here simply to declare to us all that if we are hetro, we are actually just repressed closet cases? That's what it sounds like.

 

[Grayman]

A linguistic construct that is barely 100 years old cannot be genetic. Same sex sexuality is universal in cultures existing today. Everybody knows about its universality in Greece. So whatever they are measuring that they believe to be genetic, it is not capacity to love and desire physical intimacy with the same sex. That is genetically universal in all individuals.

The political expediency of the "genetic" argument is that it allows homophobic straight people to get close to gay people without any fear that they might awaken their own homosexuality. They can tell themselves it is biologically impossible. That gives gay people breathing room. But it isn't 1972 anymore.

Do you know of any specific scientific studies that support fluid sexual orientation or any of the other things you have postulated including your idea that it is set in stone at puberty based on masturbation practices? I am curious where you are getting your information from...

 

[crippli]

If one claim to be heterosexual. Does that mean one like to have sex with the opposite sex?

Isn't it good regardless to have some form of filter, not want to have sex with whoever, as long as they got the appropriate in/out organ?

I think I would say, if questioned that I like to have sex with funny, cute and fit people. As it would indicate that I got some standard and preferences, and not willing to fuck like half of the planets human inhabitants.

 

[redbaron]

A linguistic construct that is barely 100 years old cannot be genetic. Same sex sexuality is universal in cultures existing today. Everybody knows about its universality in Greece. So whatever they are measuring that they believe to be genetic, it is not capacity to love and desire physical intimacy with the same sex. That is genetically universal in all individuals.

The political expediency of the "genetic" argument is that it allows homophobic straight people to get close to gay people without any fear that they might awaken their own homosexuality. They can tell themselves it is biologically impossible. That gives gay people breathing room. But it isn't 1972 anymore.

Okay so there's a semantic issue here. Which is that sexual orientation isn't necesarily defined by sexual actions, since circumstantial arousal can lead one to engage in sexual acts in all kinds of situations. People can screw around with members of the same sex without being homosexual or even necessarily bisexual.

I'm attracted to the opposite sex physically, but under the right circumstances I'm attracted to members of the same sex. However there's something to be conscious of, which is the fact that some people report they can't love the sex contrary to their sexual orientation in spite of whatever other connection they have. Whether it's true or not we can't be sure of. I personally doubt sexuality is that clear cut and I'd wager most people fall sonewhere between strictly hetero and strictly homo (bi) but that there probably are people who are locked in one of the extremes.

So while I agree, capacity to love would seemingly be universal - it doesn't mean you can condition someone to be a different sexual orientation. For someone who is somewhere in the middle of the scale it might seem that way, since they're attracted to both sexes, they personally have the freedom of choice and sexual malleability. I doubt that applies to everyone though.

Also you can use pretty much any argument to promote dogma. If it's not the genetic one, homophobes will just use another one. Probably religious. It does nothing to deny valid empirical conclusions that show strong statistical correlation.

That said it's important to not define the individual via statistical evidence either, as the nature of statistics rarely provides an accurate representation of reality on an individual level.

 

[Oprale]

I agree with the '' identifying oneself as part of the LGBT community just to break the social norm '' thing. Lots of teens seem to have been doing this since the last 5-10 years. Some people who are truly gay also overuse the whole LGBT thing to the point I feel like slapping them would be really satisfying... Like HEY LOOK AT ME I'M GAY, OMG I'M SO GAY AND I LOVE IT, LOVE ME, RAINBOWS RAINBOWS PEACE AND LOVE P.S I'M COOL AND LOVABLE KK.

This being said, I am homosexual ( maybe bi ). I'm strongly attracted to women, but I'm sometimes curious about having sex with guys and my very first childhood love was a boy. I knew I wasn't like the majority at a very young age, I can't even recall the exact moment I realised it, if there ever was one true realisation. I think it was a slow process, but a process that was always there anyway. As a child I never truly though '' I am gay '' , or part of the LGBT, or '' I want to have sex with women '' . Of course I didn't knew what sex was, and I had never heard of the LGBT, but more than everything I just never bothered putting words on wathever I was.

I can remember feeling different, when I was for example emotionaly bounding with a friend in a very different way than I did with other kids at a kindergarden, way back in time when I was like 4 or 5. I also seeked a lot of physical contact from her, altough it couldn't be in a sexual way yet. I missed her a friggin lot when my parents started bringing me somewhere else.

I also always liked women's body and stayed indifferent to men's. At something like 10 I remember having a conversation with an older straight girl who said she liked men's body because she '' had lots of place to cuddle '' when I asked her( sorry the translation might be a bit off, she was talking about their flat chests ). I though it was a bit weird. Even back then I though girls where much more beautiful because of their curves and their delicate faces and how much they cared about themselves ( ok and also because they're a lot less hairy, I admit I hate any kind of hair that doesn't grow on the scalp... )

I guess I started exploring my sexuality '' for real '' when I had my first computer. I still didn't knew what sexual pleasure was but I could pass hours looking at erotic pictures anyway. It was relaxing.

So yeah kids might be to young to identify as wathever they are but I can guarantee you it doesn't mean they have absolutely no idea what's going on

About coming out, I told my parents in a letter among other things some time ago because this is just how awkward I can get. Luckily they're ok with that. My brother probably knows too even if I never officialy said it because I never cared about hiding it. Details add up with time. My sister doesn't know and I almost never see her. She thinks homosexuals are weird people. I try to imagine how surprised and probably ashamed she will be when I'll actually have a girlfriend. Sometimes it stresses me, sometimes I don't care or would even pay 100 000$ to see her reaction live. I think all my friends know.

I'm not oppressed in my everyday life, so I just take it easy

( PS random shameful memory. I remember seeing two lovers french kissing at the tv when I was 5-6 years old and thinking if that's what two people that love each other do I should do this to my mother to show how much I love her. She was fucking disgusted when I tried to french-kiss her goodnight and I couldn't understand why she was so upset. Lol. )

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm straight, but it always seemed to me that if you were gay, you'd know it your whole life. Then, maybe not all INTPs are as sexual as I am. I've fantasized, sexually, about girls and women since I can remember.

 

[QuietFire]

Are there any other gay INTP's in this forum? When did you first discover you were not like everyone else?

Not like anyone else as an INTP or as a gay guy?

I find it harder to deal with my INTPness than my gayness, but they are both very difficult.