QuoteLesbians make better parents than conventional couples, according to a director of the government's parenting academy.
Stephen Scott, director of research at the National Academy for Parenting Practitioners, told a meeting last week that the latest research showed that children of such couples did better in life.
Speaking at the launch at the think tank Demos of a report on the influence of character on life, Scott said: "Lesbians make better parents than a man and a woman."
His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice. They show no more tendencies towards homosexuality than the offspring of heterosexual parents.
Such strong endorsement from the government's main agency for parenting will give a boost to gay parents. The speech from the academy, set up by the Department for Children, Schools and Families in 2007, will alarm traditional family supporters and those who raise concerns about the lack of a father figure in a child's life.
Parenting groups have recently been accused of turning into vocal advocates for the tiny minority of parents who are gay couples. There was a row this year when the British Association for Adoption and Fostering described opponents of gay adoption as "retarded homophobes". It had to pulp copies of a guide using the phrase.
However, more than a third of people now believe a lesbian couple can be at least as good parents as a man and a woman, according to the annual British Social Attitudes report.
Research at Birkbeck college, part of London University, and at Clark University in Massachusetts, says there is no evidence to show children of lesbian parents are disadvantaged in any way.
By the nature of their relationship, lesbian couples cannot have children by accident. They use a sperm donor, often a gay man, or adopt. The child then has two "mothers".
Daughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.
Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney, the former American vice-president, who is expecting her second baby later this month, said in a recent interview: "Every piece of remotely responsible research that has been done in the last 20 years has shown there is no difference between children raised by same-sex parents and children raised by opposite-sex parents. What matters is being raised in a stable, loving environment."
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6917212.ece
I question that being "more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice" is an automatic "better" child, but YMMV.
uh-huh. Goofy ass Brits.
I knew two lesbian couples up in Boston who had kids, and their kids seemed perfectly happy.
Quote from: ulmont on November 17, 2009, 09:37:10 AM
I question that being "more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice" is an automatic "better" child, but YMMV.
Yea that's a pretty one-dimensional rating.
Quote from: ulmont on November 17, 2009, 09:37:10 AM
Quote
His arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice.
So they become annoying and shrill like their mothers?
QuoteHis arguments are supported by experts who have found, over years of research, that children brought up by female couples are more aspirational and more confident in championing social justice.
WTH? I thought I was going to see something here about how they have higher incomes or stay in school or something. 'Confident in championing social justice?' What kind of bizarre metric is that?
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:39:33 AM
I knew two lesbian couples up in Boston who had kids, and their kids seemed perfectly happy.
Are those kids championing social justice?
:lol: Yeah. Gee, how shocking that children raised by gay parents would tend to be more outspoken about gay rights. -_-
It's all that matters to some people.
In fact, they're worse off, because they have been raised to believe that homosexuality is normal and acceptable.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 09:41:31 AM
Are those kids championing social justice?
The last I had contact with them they were championing being nursed and having their diapers changed.
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
The general population includes a lot of intolerant assholes. Gay couples, if nothing else, are likely going to be more aware, more tolerant, and more engaged parents, if for no other reasno than it takes a lot more work to have a child when you are gay.
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons. It would be more interesting to compare adoptive gay parents to adoptive straight parents.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
The general population includes a lot of intolerant assholes. Gay couples, if nothing else, are likely going to be more aware, more tolerant, and more engaged parents, if for no other reasno than it takes a lot more work to have a child when you are gay.
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons. It would be more interesting to compare adoptive gay parents to adoptive straight parents.
:yes:
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:42:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 09:41:31 AM
Are those kids championing social justice?
The last I had contact with them they were championing being nursed and having their diapers changed.
Hopefully they were championing this while in public places
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 17, 2009, 09:45:47 AM
Hopefully they were championing this while in public places
uh.... no. Have you ever seen a real lesbian (as opposed to a Howard Stern lesbian)? :P
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
The general population includes a lot of intolerant assholes. Gay couples, if nothing else, are likely going to be more aware, more tolerant, and more engaged parents, if for no other reasno than it takes a lot more work to have a child when you are gay.
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons. It would be more interesting to compare adoptive gay parents to adoptive straight parents.
Yep. I also perceive that gay couples tend to come from, on average, more educated backgrounds than the average joe.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on November 17, 2009, 09:45:47 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:42:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 09:41:31 AM
Are those kids championing social justice?
The last I had contact with them they were championing being nursed and having their diapers changed.
Hopefully they were championing this while in public places
Changing diapers in public gets you turned on eh? Kinky.
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
So it would not be surprising that the self-selected set of eager parents make better parents on average than the group that includes eager parents mixed with trailer trash and the like.
That said, I question the metric for comparing how good a parent you are - something in real life notoriously difficult to do.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Yep. My sister in law falls into the latter group. :bleeding:
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
The general population includes a lot of intolerant assholes. Gay couples, if nothing else, are likely going to be more aware, more tolerant, and more engaged parents, if for no other reasno than it takes a lot more work to have a child when you are gay.
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons. It would be more interesting to compare adoptive gay parents to adoptive straight parents.
yeah, it's kinda hard to have "accidental" parents among gay people, so on average they are probably better prepared to parenting than straight parents.
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:51:10 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Yep. My sister in law falls into the latter group. :bleeding:
HOTT.
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:46:30 AMuh.... no. Have you ever seen a real lesbian (as opposed to a Howard Stern lesbian)? :P
:huh:
Of course
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 09:52:00 AM
HOTT.
Well, I hope you enjoy supporting her lifestyle. I sure do. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 09:57:52 AM
It would be no problem.
Well, ok then. You'd probably like her. Blonde, big boobs, giant slut. FB has seen her pics and said he'd do her.
Only problem is she needs to get her damn teeth fixed. Ugh.
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 09:59:50 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 09:57:52 AM
It would be no problem.
Well, ok then. You'd probably like her. Blonde, big boobs, giant slut. FB has seen her pics and said he'd do her.
Only problem is she needs to get her damn teeth fixed. Ugh.
I'd give her 50 dollars a month.
I bet the sex ed lessons are awesome.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 10:02:55 AM
I'd give her 50 dollars a month.
Pshaw, her pot bills are at least double that. Plus, most of her ~$9 an hour salary is garnished for nonpayment of taxes and credit card debt. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2009, 10:06:08 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 10:02:55 AM
I'd give her 50 dollars a month.
Pshaw, her pot bills are at least double that. Plus, most of her ~$9 an hour salary is garnished for nonpayment of taxes and credit card debt. :)
Pothead? Pass. Ick.
Quote from: Maximus on November 17, 2009, 09:39:51 AM
Yea that's a pretty one-dimensional rating.
Not only one-dimensional, but "aspirations" are intangibles. Comparative results of schooling and employment rates in those fields would be needed before that claim can seriously be made. All this article tells me is that children of lesbian couples exhibit more confidence; it doesn't preclude embattled parents giving their children artificial and unreasonable ego boosts.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 17, 2009, 11:16:46 AM
Quote from: Maximus on November 17, 2009, 09:39:51 AM
Yea that's a pretty one-dimensional rating.
Not only one-dimensional, but "aspirations" are intangibles. Comparative results of schooling and employment rates in those fields would be needed before that claim can seriously be made. All this article tells me is that children of lesbian couples exhibit more confidence; it doesn't preclude embattled parents giving their children artificial and unreasonable ego boosts.
Heh, "research says: children of lesbian parents are little shits with entitlement issues". :D
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 11:20:17 AM
Heh, "research says: children of lesbian parents are little shits with entitlement issues". :D
We could probably make that even less wordy:
"Cocky little shitheads." ;)
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
The general population includes a lot of intolerant assholes. Gay couples, if nothing else, are likely going to be more aware, more tolerant, and more engaged parents, if for no other reasno than it takes a lot more work to have a child when you are gay.
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons. It would be more interesting to compare adoptive gay parents to adoptive straight parents.
I agree. Simply having to make a choice to become a parent would make them better then the whole sample of hetero parents, which would include parents that were forced into parenthood.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Actually the few lesbian couples I know have children from previous, straight, relationships.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I also would not find it surprising that adoptive parents as a whole are better parents than the average, for much the same reasons.
There have been some studies on this topic, which were mentioned in the Freakonomics book. The findings, as you would expect, were that adopted children were generally more successful than similar children not adopted (but less successful than natural children of adoptors).
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I agree. Simply having to make a choice to become a parent would make them better then the whole sample of hetero parents, which would include parents that were forced into parenthood.
Actually I just remembered another lesbian couple I "know" (from their involvement in the court system). The one who was before the courts was forced into parenthood in the most forceful manner - rape.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I agree. Simply having to make a choice to become a parent would make them better then the whole sample of hetero parents, which would include parents that were forced into parenthood.
Actually I just remembered another lesbian couple I "know" (from their involvement in the court system). The one who was before the courts was forced into parenthood in the most forceful manner - rape.
Since we are talking about statistical outcomes of groups, I think we can discard those kinds of examples as statistical aberrations - unless of course you are suggesting that the number of lesbian couples who have children by rape is statistically significant.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:16:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I agree. Simply having to make a choice to become a parent would make them better then the whole sample of hetero parents, which would include parents that were forced into parenthood.
Actually I just remembered another lesbian couple I "know" (from their involvement in the court system). The one who was before the courts was forced into parenthood in the most forceful manner - rape.
Since we are talking about statistical outcomes of groups, I think we can discard those kinds of examples as statistical aberrations - unless of course you are suggesting that the number of lesbian couples who have children by rape is statistically significant.
No. But the number of lesbian couples who have children from previous straight relationships is, I would suggest, probably the majority of cases.
The facts would be different for male same-sex couples with children, since the woman in the relationship statistically is more likely to have custody of the children.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:20:09 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:16:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:14:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:09:17 PM
I agree. Simply having to make a choice to become a parent would make them better then the whole sample of hetero parents, which would include parents that were forced into parenthood.
Actually I just remembered another lesbian couple I "know" (from their involvement in the court system). The one who was before the courts was forced into parenthood in the most forceful manner - rape.
Since we are talking about statistical outcomes of groups, I think we can discard those kinds of examples as statistical aberrations - unless of course you are suggesting that the number of lesbian couples who have children by rape is statistically significant.
No. But the number of lesbian couples who have children from previous straight relationships is, I would suggest, probably the majority of cases.
The facts would be different for male same-sex couples with children, since the woman in the relationship statistically is more likely to have custody of the children.
Still I think even in lesbian couples, the percentage of adoptive parents is higher than among straight couples. But yes, you bring in a good amount of new data that prevents us from writing the entire result off as an "adoptive parents'" thing only.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:20:09 PM
The facts would be different for male same-sex couples with children, since the woman in the relationship statistically is more likely to have custody of the children.
It would be interesting to see stats on that. A lot of gay couples I know had at least one person in a previous hetero marriage and the gay couple has the kids of that marriage.
One thing is that it does appear that sexuality is an elastic concept despite what people on both sides of the debate wish to say about it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:23:44 PM
Still I think even in lesbian couples, the percentage of adoptive parents is higher than among straight couples. But yes, you bring in a good amount of new data that prevents us from writing the entire result off as an "adoptive parents'" thing only.
I don't think anybody wrote off anything as one element only, we were only speculating on factors...the only thing that makes me write it off is the data the result is based on. Courage to champion social causes is the most bizarre measure of parenting I have ever seen.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 02:26:33 PM
Courage to champion social causes is the most bizarre measure of parenting I have ever seen.
Yep.
Marti would only agree with this if the causes being championed were ones he agreed with. But if the cause was say the defence of traditional marriage and banning gays he would have a very different view.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:25:51 PM
One thing is that it does appear that sexuality is an elastic concept despite what people on both sides of the debate wish to say about it.
Uhm, that's ridiculous. Trying to conform and being in denial does not mean sexuality is elastic - only that people try to fight it off initially. If sexuality was elastic, why would anyone choose to be gay at all, considering the amount of homophobic crap one has to deal with.
If anything, this suggests exactly the opposite to what you are saying - that even having a previous heterosexual relationship and kids is not enough to keep one from eventually following their true sexuality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 02:26:33 PM
Courage to champion social causes is the most bizarre measure of parenting I have ever seen.
Yep.
Marti would only agree with this if the causes being championed were ones he agreed with. But if the cause was say the defence of traditional marriage and banning gays he would have a very different view.
Wow, you are a cretin. The criteria used wasn't being fanatical about causes but championing
social justice. It's hard to see fundamentalist homophobia as "social justice" except perhaps in your fucked up world, idiot.
Marti, unfortunately for you social justice can, of course, mean a great deal more then what you would want it to mean.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:25:51 PM
One thing is that it does appear that sexuality is an elastic concept despite what people on both sides of the debate wish to say about it.
Uhm, that's ridiculous. Trying to conform and being in denial does not mean sexuality is elastic - only that people try to fight it off initially. If sexuality was elastic, why would anyone choose to be gay at all, considering the amount of homophobic crap one has to deal with.
If anything, this suggests exactly the opposite to what you are saying - that even having a previous heterosexual relationship and kids is not enough to keep one from eventually following their true sexuality.
A bit touchy about that Marti. Coming to close to a nerve perhaps?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:43:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:25:51 PM
One thing is that it does appear that sexuality is an elastic concept despite what people on both sides of the debate wish to say about it.
Uhm, that's ridiculous. Trying to conform and being in denial does not mean sexuality is elastic - only that people try to fight it off initially. If sexuality was elastic, why would anyone choose to be gay at all, considering the amount of homophobic crap one has to deal with.
If anything, this suggests exactly the opposite to what you are saying - that even having a previous heterosexual relationship and kids is not enough to keep one from eventually following their true sexuality.
A bit touchy about that Marti. Coming to close to a nerve perhaps?
No, coming too close to the standard fare homophobic claptrap you hear all too often. Let's face it - you are a homophobic scum. You hide it quite well - after all, it would not do for someone with your career and social status to be an outspoken bigot - but with your comments you prove over and over again, you are a homophobe.
Knowing the kind of person you are, I do not doubt two lesbians would be better parents than you. Hell, grallon would be a better parent than you.
I really don't have anything else to say to you.
Martinus tries so hard.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Actually the few lesbian couples I know have children from previous, straight, relationships.
Chances are you will still get significant statistical skewing. Certainly some percentage of lesbian women will have "accidental kids", but chances are very high that less will than straight women, since straight woman sexuality involves doing things that often risk pregnacy for fun and gay woman sexuality doesn't.
This thread got awesome.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Actually the few lesbian couples I know have children from previous, straight, relationships.
Chances are you will still get significant statistical skewing. Certainly some percentage of lesbian women will have "accidental kids", but chances are very high that less will than straight women, since straight woman sexuality involves doing things that often risk pregnacy for fun and gay woman sexuality doesn't.
Actually, you are probably wrong, but not sure if this would be statistically significant. I read about some statistics showing that gay people who have straight sex early in their life are more likely to "Try for a Kid" (in Sims 3 terms) than the sexually not-confused straight kids. Apparently, this is a psychological mechanism resulting from the denial of one's sexual identity.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 17, 2009, 02:57:05 PM
This thread got awesome.
I needed to come back home from work.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:58:27 PM
Actually, you are probably wrong, but not sure if this would be statistically significant. I read about some statistics showing that gay people who have straight sex early in their life are more likely to "Try for a Kid" (in Sims 3 terms) than the sexually not-confused straight kids. Apparently, this is a psychological mechanism resulting from the denial of one's sexual identity.
That sounds plausible.
QuoteDaughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.
This is actually a good metric though it sorta throws me off. Talk about dead traditions, I don't think anybody has considered those two professions male since the 1970s. I thought they were going to talk about the military or math and science something that is currently thought of as male. If we are going to get into archaic ideas of gender relations you can safely regard any profession outside of Nursing, Teaching, and Secretarial work as being male. Even being a professional cook was considered male.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:02:27 PM
QuoteDaughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.
This is actually a good metric though it sorta throws me off. Talk about dead traditions, I don't think anybody has considered those two professions male since the 1970s. I thought they were going to talk about the military or math and science something that is currently thought of as male. If we are going to get into archaic ideas of gender relations you can safely regard any profession outside of Nursing, Teaching, and Secretarial work.
Yeah, that's true. Maybe there aren't many female surgeons, but doctors overall have plenty of women. Likewise, in lawyering, there are some areas that are virtually dominated by women. In Poland at least, we also have plenty of female judges.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:48:02 PM
No, coming too close to the standard fare homophobic claptrap you hear all too often. Let's face it - you are a homophobic scum. You hide it quite well - after all, it would not do for someone with your career and social status to be an outspoken bigot - but with your comments you prove over and over again, you are a homophobe.
Knowing the kind of person you are, I do not doubt two lesbians would be better parents than you. Hell, grallon would be a better parent than you.
I really don't have anything else to say to you.
The idea that sexuality is elastic is considered mainstream psychology.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2009, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:48:02 PM
No, coming too close to the standard fare homophobic claptrap you hear all too often. Let's face it - you are a homophobic scum. You hide it quite well - after all, it would not do for someone with your career and social status to be an outspoken bigot - but with your comments you prove over and over again, you are a homophobe.
Knowing the kind of person you are, I do not doubt two lesbians would be better parents than you. Hell, grallon would be a better parent than you.
I really don't have anything else to say to you.
The idea that sexuality is elastic is considered mainstream psychology.
Fuck you, you Homophobe!!!!!
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2009, 03:04:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:48:02 PM
No, coming too close to the standard fare homophobic claptrap you hear all too often. Let's face it - you are a homophobic scum. You hide it quite well - after all, it would not do for someone with your career and social status to be an outspoken bigot - but with your comments you prove over and over again, you are a homophobe.
Knowing the kind of person you are, I do not doubt two lesbians would be better parents than you. Hell, grallon would be a better parent than you.
I really don't have anything else to say to you.
The idea that sexuality is elastic is considered mainstream psychology.
But then the idea that you are delusional is also considered mainstream psychology. So if you say something is considered mainstream psychology, is it true or is it part of your delusion?
I think I discovered the Raz's Paradox.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Actually the few lesbian couples I know have children from previous, straight, relationships.
Chances are you will still get significant statistical skewing. Certainly some percentage of lesbian women will have "accidental kids", but chances are very high that less will than straight women, since straight woman sexuality involves doing things that often risk pregnacy for fun and gay woman sexuality doesn't.
Actually, you are probably wrong, but not sure if this would be statistically significant. I read about some statistics showing that gay people who have straight sex early in their life are more likely to "Try for a Kid" (in Sims 3 terms) than the sexually not-confused straight kids. Apparently, this is a psychological mechanism resulting from the denial of one's sexual identity.
Not sure what you mean. To me, it seems the equation goes like this:
1 - Those who have kids by chance, without specifically wanting them, are more likely to have lousy parenting skills than those who want them.
2. - On average, the more a women screws guys, the more likely they are to get pregnant (assuming for the sake of argument birth control status etc is the same).
3 - The "hetero woman" category contains a larger percentage of women who will have kids without wanting them than the "gay women" category, because on average they, by definition, screw more guys (not to deny that gay women have previous hetero relations, get raped, etc., but *on average* they screw less guys than straight women on average).
4 - If these three points are correct, then one would predict that the *average* gay women makes a better parent than the average straight one - since they are more likely to have a kid by choice rather than chance.
Where is the flaw in this logic?
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:04:07 PM
Yeah, that's true. Maybe there aren't many female surgeons, but doctors overall have plenty of women. Likewise, in lawyering, there are some areas that are virtually dominated by women. In Poland at least, we also have plenty of female judges.
I have a further thought about this...it seems to be based entirely on surveys. Children of lesbians are more likely to champion certain causes or aspire to things. What are their actual results of the children's lives? Are the sample groups controlled for things like income and educational levels? Are they being compared to only straight couples that raised their biological children together?
I mean not that it matters. In my book any adult who wants to raise children will get my blessing regardless of their sexuality.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:58:27 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 02:55:57 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
Since Lesbians are unlikely to get pregnant by accident, the demographic is skewed in favour of those who go through considerable effort & trouble to be parents - as opposed to the hetero category, which includes a percentage of those too dumb to use birth control and too squeamish or religious to get abortions.
Actually the few lesbian couples I know have children from previous, straight, relationships.
Chances are you will still get significant statistical skewing. Certainly some percentage of lesbian women will have "accidental kids", but chances are very high that less will than straight women, since straight woman sexuality involves doing things that often risk pregnacy for fun and gay woman sexuality doesn't.
Actually, you are probably wrong, but not sure if this would be statistically significant. I read about some statistics showing that gay people who have straight sex early in their life are more likely to "Try for a Kid" (in Sims 3 terms) than the sexually not-confused straight kids. Apparently, this is a psychological mechanism resulting from the denial of one's sexual identity.
Not sure what you mean. To me, it seems the equation goes like this:
1 - Those who have kids by chance, without specifically wanting them, are more likely to have lousy parenting skills than those who want them.
2. - On average, the more a women screws guys, the more likely they are to get pregnant (assuming for the sake of argument birth control status etc is the same).
3 - The "hetero woman" category contains a larger percentage of women who will have kids without wanting them than the "gay women" category, because on average they, by definition, screw more guys (not to deny that gay women have previous hetero relations, get raped, etc., but *on average* they screw less guys than straight women on average).
4 - If these three points are correct, then one would predict that the *average* gay women makes a better parent than the average straight one - since they are more likely to have a kid by choice rather than chance.
Where is the flaw in this logic?
No, what I mean you are disregarding a category of gay woman (or gay man) who is still in denial about her or his sexuality and gets pregnant (or gets someone else pregnant) early in their life. Such people "want" kids (more or less consciously) but they want them for the wrong reasons (validation of their hoped-for heterosexuality), and thus imo fall into the category of the "bad" parent. According to statistics I read such people are more likely to have kids than straight people of their age.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:09:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:04:07 PM
Yeah, that's true. Maybe there aren't many female surgeons, but doctors overall have plenty of women. Likewise, in lawyering, there are some areas that are virtually dominated by women. In Poland at least, we also have plenty of female judges.
I have a further thought about this...it seems to be based entirely on surveys. Children of lesbians are more likely to champion certain causes or aspire to things. What are their actual results of the children's lives? Are the sample groups controlled for things like income and educational levels? Are they being compared to only straight couples that raised their biological children together?
I mean not that it matters. In my book any adult who wants to raise children will get my blessing regardless of their sexuality.
I guess we don't have yet statistically significant results to compare kids raised to adulthood by gay couples since it is a relatively recent phenomenon (sure, gay people have been raising kids for generations, but having actually two openly gay parents of the same sex is a new thing and probably less than a generation old).
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:12:06 PM
No, what I mean you are disregarding a category of gay woman (or gay man) who is still in denial about her or his sexuality and gets pregnant (or gets someone else pregnant) early in their life. Such people "want" kids (more or less consciously) but they want them for the wrong reasons (validation of their hoped-for heterosexuality), and thus imo fall into the category of the "bad" parent. According to statistics I read such people are more likely to have kids than straight people of their age.
Ok let me ask you this question: what sort of woman has more children on average a gay woman or a straight woman?
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:02:27 PM
QuoteDaughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.
This is actually a good metric though it sorta throws me off. Talk about dead traditions, I don't think anybody has considered those two professions male since the 1970s. I thought they were going to talk about the military or math and science something that is currently thought of as male. If we are going to get into archaic ideas of gender relations you can safely regard any profession outside of Nursing, Teaching, and Secretarial work as being male. Even being a professional cook was considered male.
No kidding. I don't think doctors or lawyers have been male dominated for 20 years. Hell I think law schools are consistently pumping out more female graduates than male graduates for some time now.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 03:15:41 PM
No kidding. I don't think doctors or lawyers have been male dominated for 20 years. Hell I think law schools are consistently pumping out more female graduates than male graduates for some time now.
In fact there is a lot of study now as to why that is and how male numbers can be brought back into par with females.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 03:15:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:02:27 PM
QuoteDaughters of lesbians are more likely to aspire to professions that were traditionally considered male, such as doctors or lawyers.
This is actually a good metric though it sorta throws me off. Talk about dead traditions, I don't think anybody has considered those two professions male since the 1970s. I thought they were going to talk about the military or math and science something that is currently thought of as male. If we are going to get into archaic ideas of gender relations you can safely regard any profession outside of Nursing, Teaching, and Secretarial work as being male. Even being a professional cook was considered male.
No kidding. I don't think doctors or lawyers have been male dominated for 20 years. Hell I think law schools are consistently pumping out more female graduates than male graduates for some time now.
did you pump out many female graduates
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:13:55 PM
I guess we don't have yet statistically significant results to compare kids raised to adulthood by gay couples since it is a relatively recent phenomenon (sure, gay people have been raising kids for generations, but having actually two openly gay parents of the same sex is a new thing and probably less than a generation old).
Well then performance in school and behavior issues and other things would be a good metric than simply asking a kid how they feel about certain things and drawing conclusions from there.
But again I just found the way they drew their conclusions weird, I have no problem with the conclusion itself...besides the unfortunate idea that to better raise my children I should become Lesbian.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Not sure what you mean. To me, it seems the equation goes like this:
1 - Those who have kids by chance, without specifically wanting them, are more likely to have lousy parenting skills than those who want them.
2. - On average, the more a women screws guys, the more likely they are to get pregnant (assuming for the sake of argument birth control status etc is the same).
3 - The "hetero woman" category contains a larger percentage of women who will have kids without wanting them than the "gay women" category, because on average they, by definition, screw more guys (not to deny that gay women have previous hetero relations, get raped, etc., but *on average* they screw less guys than straight women on average).
4 - If these three points are correct, then one would predict that the *average* gay women makes a better parent than the average straight one - since they are more likely to have a kid by choice rather than chance.
Where is the flaw in this logic?
I think the flaw in your argument is relating amount of sex to procreating. In this day and age of birth control and condoms a woman has so much more say on having a child that there's very little connection.
OF course it's still true that by NOT having straight sex you're guaranteed to not have children. :D
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2009, 03:17:55 PM
did you pump out many female graduates
I pumped in (and occasionally, on) many female graduates. :perv:
Well, not really, but the reply had to be made. :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:15:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:12:06 PM
No, what I mean you are disregarding a category of gay woman (or gay man) who is still in denial about her or his sexuality and gets pregnant (or gets someone else pregnant) early in their life. Such people "want" kids (more or less consciously) but they want them for the wrong reasons (validation of their hoped-for heterosexuality), and thus imo fall into the category of the "bad" parent. According to statistics I read such people are more likely to have kids than straight people of their age.
Ok let me ask you this question: what sort of woman has more children on average a gay woman or a straight woman?
How is this question relevant? After all we are talking about proportions, not absolute numbers (otherwise comparing children raised by heterosexual couples with children raised by gay couples would always show there are MORE children raised by heterosexual couples that meet ANY possible criteria, since there are simply more of them).
My point is that it is not true that gay parents are necessarily going to have a higher proportion of "planned" children than straight parents, and if you just look at early sexual lifestyles, gay parents are MORE LIKELY to have a higher PROPORTION of "unplanned" children than straight parents.
I do not question that straight parents have more children in absolute numbers, whether planned or not. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:12:06 PM
No, what I mean you are disregarding a category of gay woman (or gay man) who is still in denial about her or his sexuality and gets pregnant (or gets someone else pregnant) early in their life. Such people "want" kids (more or less consciously) but they want them for the wrong reasons (validation of their hoped-for heterosexuality), and thus imo fall into the category of the "bad" parent. According to statistics I read such people are more likely to have kids than straight people of their age.
You are right, I never considered that.
The fact that women who later turn out to be gay have
more children than women who do not of the same age indicates that there are
some women who fall into the category you mention.
However, I have strong doubts whether the purportion of "bad" lesbian parents who had kids for this reason, then "came out" later in life, outnumbers in statistical significance among lesbians (remembering that of course not
all lesbian women have kids by their hetero partners for "bad" reasons) the purportion of straight women who have kids at some point throughout their lives simply because they are careless, among straight women. Seems to me the latter would be a torrent and the former a trickle, as it were.
That said, I obviously do not have any statistics to back it up.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:06:33 PM
But then the idea that you are delusional is also considered mainstream psychology. So if you say something is considered mainstream psychology, is it true or is it part of your delusion?
I think I discovered the Raz's Paradox.
QuoteSome people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime. Individuals maybe become aware at different points in their lives that they are heterosexual, gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
http://www.aglp.org/pages/cfactsheets.html#Anchor-Gay-14210
Now I don't agree with everything here. Personally I think that homosexuality fits the criteria of mental illness but a fiat decision in the 1970's was made to declassify it as such, (though other paraphilia such as sexual preference for children or goats or dead people or what ever still remain), but this is mainstream psychology.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
How is this question relevant? After all we are talking about proportions
I am talking about proportions as well. Children per woman. Which sort of, as in one single, woman is going to have more children. It just seems logical to me that if a straight woman is going to have 2.3 children and a Lesbian is going to have 1.8 (totally made up numbers) then that suggests a high number of unwanted children per woman. I mean unless getting pregnant accidentally is something more prevalent in lesbians...
QuoteMy point is that it is not true that gay parents are necessarily going to have a higher proportion of "planned" children than straight parents
Didn't you just say they were in fact planned children based on the gay persons desire to have children to prove themselves straight? Is that really the same sort of thing as an accidental pregnancy? Straight people have planned children for bad reasons all the time as well...planning to have a baby for a bad reason is not the same as unexpected pregnancy. You are still prepared to have a child and raise it in that case.
Or are you suggesting gay people do not want to have children but have them accidentally out of some sort of deep psychosis they are not aware of?
I am confused.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
How is this question relevant? After all we are talking about proportions
I am talking about proportions as well. Children per woman. Which sort of, as in one single, woman is going to have more children. It just seems logical to me that if a straight woman is going to have 2.3 children and a Lesbian is going to have 1.8 (totally made up numbers) then that suggests a high number of unwanted children per woman. I mean unless getting pregnant accidentally is something more prevalent in lesbians...
QuoteMy point is that it is not true that gay parents are necessarily going to have a higher proportion of "planned" children than straight parents
Didn't you just say they were in fact planned children based on the gay persons desire to have children to prove themselves straight? Is that really the same sort of thing as an accidental pregnancy? Straight people have planned children for bad reasons all the time as well...planning to have a baby for a bad reason is not the same as unexpected pregnancy. You are still prepared to have a child and raise it in that case.
Or are you suggesting gay people do not want to have children but have them accidentally out of some sort of deep psychosis they are not aware of?
I am confused.
Well I meant "unplanned" in that they aren't really planned in the sense of there being some conscious thought about wanting a kid to raise - but rather just wanting to impregnate/be impregnated by someone. I explained that in my previous post.
Essentially, they "want" children for immature reasons and as such are no better than people who have children "by accident".
And yes, gays and lesbians in deep denial can be seen to be suffering from a deep psychosis, one that is caused by the society and religion they grew up in.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2009, 03:26:16 PM
Now I don't agree with everything here. Personally I think that homosexuality fits the criteria of mental illness but a fiat decision in the 1970's was made to declassify it as such, (though other paraphilia such as sexual preference for children or goats or dead people or what ever still remain), but this is mainstream psychology.
:ike:
Please die already.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:20:31 PM
How is this question relevant? After all we are talking about proportions
I am talking about proportions as well. Children per woman. Which sort of, as in one single, woman is going to have more children. It just seems logical to me that if a straight woman is going to have 2.3 children and a Lesbian is going to have 1.8 (totally made up numbers) then that suggests a high number of unwanted children per woman. I mean unless getting pregnant accidentally is something more prevalent in lesbians...
QuoteMy point is that it is not true that gay parents are necessarily going to have a higher proportion of "planned" children than straight parents
Didn't you just say they were in fact planned children based on the gay persons desire to have children to prove themselves straight? Is that really the same sort of thing as an accidental pregnancy? Straight people have planned children for bad reasons all the time as well...planning to have a baby for a bad reason is not the same as unexpected pregnancy.
Or are you suggesting gay people do not want to have children but have them accidentally out of some sort of deep psychosis they are not aware of?
I am confused.
I think he's suggesting it's a reason, but not one conducive to self-selection for good parenting skills.
He's probably right, but in terms of purportions I very strongly doubt it outweighs the significance of straight women having totally unplanned pregnancies.
That is, if you were to draw a pie chart listing average "reasons for having a child", the lesbians' would have a larger slice labelled "good reasons" than a straight woman - in spite of the fact that there will be a slice on the lesbian chart labelled "have kids to prove hetero-ness". The slice labelled "have kids because careless" will be on both charts (some lesbian women will have done so before comming out), but the hetero one will be much, much larger - it would easily swallow up both its equivalent on the lesbian chart plus the "have kids to prove hetero-ness" one, since only some lesbians have a straight sexual history at all.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 03:25:11 PM
Seems to me the latter would be a torrent and the former a trickle, as it were.
I do not have statistics handy but I read that actually it's if not the opposite, then at least pretty equal, at least in terms of proportions (and not absolute numbers).
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:31:03 PM
Well I meant "unplanned" in that they aren't really planned in the sense of there being some conscious thought about wanting a kid to raise - but rather just wanting to impregnate/be impregnated by someone. I explained that in my previous post.
Essentially, they "want" children for immature reasons and as such are no better than people who have children "by accident".
And yes, gays and lesbians in deep denial can be seen to be suffering from a deep psychosis, one that is caused by the society and religion they grew up in.
Well I think they are better since the people who have children by accident just wanted to have sex and had no reason, mature or otherwise, for having them. I think even the straight kids who have children out of a desire to have somebody who loves them or prove themselves mature or to keep the one they want from leaviong them are better set up to be parents than the purely accidental ones.
I mean people have all sorts of reasons for becoming a parent but once the kid is there it is a totally new ballgame.
Ok I guess we are now arguing about minutiae.
I think we can all agree that probably a bigger proportion of gay parents have children for the "good" reasons than straight parents, but the advantage is not as overwhelming as one would believe if all gay parents had adoptive kids.
Yeah, "populate the world with gays" is a great reason.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2009, 03:40:33 PM
Yeah, "populate the world with gays" is a great reason.
Unfortunately for gays their children are no more gay than straight people's children. The gay agenda has been successfully thwarted for the time being.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:32:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2009, 03:26:16 PM
Now I don't agree with everything here. Personally I think that homosexuality fits the criteria of mental illness but a fiat decision in the 1970's was made to declassify it as such, (though other paraphilia such as sexual preference for children or goats or dead people or what ever still remain), but this is mainstream psychology.
:ike:
Please die already.
I wish you actually knew something about homosexuality.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2009, 03:40:33 PM
Yeah, "populate the world with gays" is a great reason.
Unfortunately for gays their children are no more gay than straight people's children. The gay agenda has been successfully thwarted for the time being.
Fortunately, the hetero side has been no more successful. So we are at a stand-still.
Although I'd say that showtunes and musical theatre have proven more effective than ex-gay therapies. :P
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:44:59 PM
Although I'd say that showtunes and musical theatre have proven more effective than ex-gay therapies. :P
I am in rehearsals for my musical right now. :gay: Though one of my good friends once said about doing musicals in SF that he was the only man in the cast or audience who liked girls.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:47:21 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:44:59 PM
Although I'd say that showtunes and musical theatre have proven more effective than ex-gay therapies. :P
I am in rehearsals for my musical right now. :gay: Though one of my good friends once said about doing musicals in SF that he was the only man in the cast or audience who liked girls.
*ill-informed rant about usage of the word girls*
B.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2009, 03:40:33 PM
Yeah, "populate the world with gays" is a great reason.
Unfortunately for gays their children are no more gay than straight people's children. The gay agenda has been successfully thwarted for the time being.
But but they are giving in to peer pressure to stay straight. Oh wait. Their parents are gay. I guess Marti is going to have to rethink the issue of shifting sexuality.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 03:42:17 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2009, 03:40:33 PM
Yeah, "populate the world with gays" is a great reason.
Unfortunately for gays their children are no more gay than straight people's children. The gay agenda has been successfully thwarted for the time being.
But but they are giving in to peer pressure to stay straight. Oh wait. Their parents are gay. I guess Marti is going to have to rethink the issue of shifting sexuality.
Err, what? Do you even read what you write? How does the fact that gay people are no more likely to have gay or straight kids than straight people prove that sexuality is flexible? If anything, it proves exactly the opposite - that it is fixed, and parental influence has no relevance here. :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 02:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 02:25:51 PM
One thing is that it does appear that sexuality is an elastic concept despite what people on both sides of the debate wish to say about it.
Uhm, that's ridiculous. Trying to conform and being in denial does not mean sexuality is elastic - only that people try to fight it off initially. If sexuality was elastic, why would anyone choose to be gay at all, considering the amount of homophobic crap one has to deal with.
If anything, this suggests exactly the opposite to what you are saying - that even having a previous heterosexual relationship and kids is not enough to keep one from eventually following their true sexuality.
I don't think CC is homophobic (:tinfoil:) but I would agree that his conclusion does not naturally follow.
Quote from: Martinus on November 17, 2009, 03:55:53 PM
Err, what? Do you even read what you write? How does the fact that gay people are no more likely to have gay or straight kids than straight people prove that sexuality is flexible? If anything, it proves exactly the opposite - that it is fixed, and parental influence has no relevance here. :huh:
Marti, you jumped all over me for simply oberving that homosexual couples which were formed from partners who were in heterosexual relationships showed that sexuality can be elastic. In your usual way you jumped to all kinds of hysterical conclusions which included that gay people start out as heterosexual because they are somehow repressed.
If that is true, and repression is the cause of people not recognizing their "true" sexuality then statistically one would expect that when that pressure is removed more people would recognize that they are in fact gay. But it turns out that doesn happen at all. Homosexual parents dont have a greater percentage of homosexual children.
One logical inference from that data is you are wrong about your observation that sexuality is not elastic but merely repressed just as you are wrong about me being some kind of malicious closet homophobe - not to mention all the other craziness you spout.
I couch my anti-gay slurs in smileys.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:06:41 PM
If that is true, and repression is the cause of people not recognizing their "true" sexuality then statistically one would expect that when that pressure is removed more people would recognize that they are in fact gay. But it turns out that doesn happen at all. Homosexual parents dont have a greater percentage of homosexual children.
One logical inference from that data is you are wrong about your observation that sexuality is not elastic but merely repressed just as you are wrong about me being some kind of malicious closet homophobe - not to mention all the other craziness you spout.
Another logical inference is that repression takes all sorts of forms and even having openly gay parents can't change that.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 05:10:20 PM
Another logical inference is that repression takes all sorts of forms and even having openly gay parents can't change that.
I suppose but then I dont really know what you mean by repression. Care to elaborate?
I frankly dont really understand what the objection is to the observation that sexuality is elastic. Clearly people's sexuality can change over time. Isnt that being elastic?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:14:17 PM
I suppose but then I dont really know what you mean by repression. Care to elaborate?
I frankly dont really understand what the objection is to the observation that sexuality is elastic. Clearly people's sexuality can change over time. Isnt that being elastic?
I didn't say that I had an issue with the term elastic (after all I'm not Marty) just that I don't think it follows from your support.
I think repression is not being honest to yourself about your sexual preferences at any given time, and perhaps with the corollary that it is causing you some sort of distress.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:14:17 PM
Clearly people's sexuality can change over time. Isnt that being elastic?
Yeah I disagree but then I tend to lean towards the nature part of the nature/nurture debate. I mean if I wanted to change my sexuality how would I go about it?
But hey it is not like I have never been wrong about something before.
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 05:28:19 PM
I think repression is not being honest to yourself about your sexual preferences at any given time, and perhaps with the corollary that it is causing you some sort of distress.
I see. Isnt repression something that is caused by another party though. What you are describing is self delusion which I concede is equally possible with both straight and gay parents. But the kind of repression described by Marti is only possible with straight parents - hence the flaw in his logic.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
Yeah I disagree but then I tend to lean towards the nature part of the nature/nurture debate. I mean if I wanted to change my sexuality how would I go about it?
But hey it is not like I have never been wrong about something before.
You dont conciously do it. At least I dont think you do. I didnt wake up one morning and say "Ok thats it, I like girls!" That is another thing Marti got wrong in his rant. Saying that sexuality is a elastic isnt saying its a matter of choice. There is likely a longer list of factors influencing sexuality then we will ever really know. What we do know however, is that sexuality can change over time.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:14:17 PM
Clearly people's sexuality can change over time. Isnt that being elastic?
Yeah I disagree but then I tend to lean towards the nature part of the nature/nurture debate. I mean if I wanted to change my sexuality how would I go about it?
Well, we could start by locking you up in an all-male prision for a few years ... ;)
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Is that how they explain the Royal Navy?
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Is that how they explain the Royal Navy?
No. The Royal Navy only recruited gays and people that were gay but didnt know it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 05:58:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Is that how they explain the Royal Navy?
Yep.
Though the rum and the lash probably helped. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
I see. Isnt repression something that is caused by another party though. What you are describing is self delusion which I concede is equally possible with both straight and gay parents. But the kind of repression described by Marti is only possible with straight parents - hence the flaw in his logic.
Psychological repression is the involuntary psychological act of excluding desires and impulses (wishes, fantasies or feelings) from one's consciousness and holding or subduing them in the unconscious.
That's from wiki, but I think it is fine in a pinch.
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
Neither would I. Straight couples accidentally become parents - which doesn't mean that those parents will necessarily be bad at it. But I think generally the couples who have thought it through very intently before becoming parents would do better.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
Yeah I disagree but then I tend to lean towards the nature part of the nature/nurture debate. I mean if I wanted to change my sexuality how would I go about it?
I'm typically on the nurture side although I don't know what to make of sexuality. Anyway, trying to have sex with guys would be a start.
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
Well, we could start by locking you up in an all-male prision for a few years ... ;)
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Having sex with men because there are no women available would not change my sexuality :P
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 06:04:19 PM
I'm typically on the nurture side although I don't know what to make of sexuality. Anyway, trying to have sex with guys would be a start.
Would having sex with girls change your sexuality?
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 17, 2009, 06:03:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 17, 2009, 09:44:30 AM
I actually would not find it at all surprising if gay couples were lsightly better parents than the general population.
Neither would I. Straight couples accidentally become parents - which doesn't mean that those parents will necessarily be bad at it. But I think generally the couples who have thought it through very intently before becoming parents would do better.
You're coming into the conversation late.
I don't think gay couples become parents any more deliberately than do straight couples. In particular, most gay couples (in my anecdotal experience) have children as a result of one or both of them being in a previously straight relationship.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 06:54:10 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 06:04:19 PM
I'm typically on the nurture side although I don't know what to make of sexuality. Anyway, trying to have sex with guys would be a start.
Would having sex with girls change your sexuality?
He might grow to like it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 07:03:06 PM
I don't think gay couples become parents any more deliberately than do straight couples. In particular, most gay couples (in my anecdotal experience) have children as a result of one or both of them being in a previously straight relationship.
Herm. I am trying to think of a nice way to suggest this is an age thing.
Most couples your age don't have any kids, Fae.
Quote from: Barrister on November 17, 2009, 07:03:06 PM
I don't think gay couples become parents any more deliberately than do straight couples. In particular, most gay couples (in my anecdotal experience) have children as a result of one or both of them being in a previously straight relationship.
Okay but there's still a proportionally higher number of adoptions - which are difficult and thought through. In my own anecdotal experience I've known more gay men who were married and have since come out (and lost custody) than lesbians who had children.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 06:53:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
Well, we could start by locking you up in an all-male prision for a few years ... ;)
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Having sex with men because there are no women available would not change my sexuality :P
Try it and find out. Tell the wife first though.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 17, 2009, 07:21:15 PM
Most couples your age don't have any kids, Fae.
That's certainly true, although a horrifying number of them are getting married. But I'm not sure the sample result would be the same based on age and location. Growing up in Jersey, the lesbians we knew had their kid artificially, through mad science.
Quote from: Faeelin on November 17, 2009, 07:35:10 PM
That's certainly true, although a horrifying number of them are getting married. But I'm not sure the sample result would be the same based on age and location. Growing up in Jersey, the lesbians we knew had their kid artificially, through mad science.
I know of a lot of people my age getting married. Most of them are hard-core Christians gagging for a shag.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 06:54:10 PM
Would having sex with girls change your sexuality?
You said that you didn't even know where to begin. :P
And if changing sexuality just means moving it from a check one box to something more fluid, I could possibly see that for myself. After all, there are some women that I would consider having sex with - although it would certainly at this point be more laborious than gay sex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 17, 2009, 05:33:02 PM
What we do know however, is that sexuality can change over time.
I don't think we know that. Do we?
Anecdotally, I can think of three instances of "sexuality changing over time":
- straight people in prisons, monasteries and the like adopting homosexual behaviour,
- people who considered themselves straight coming out as gay at a later age,
- gay people "praying the gay away" (or undergoing other form of a "therapy") to go straight.
Each can be easily explained away psychologically as something else than "sexuality changing over time".
What I know - and perhaps that's what you mean by your term "elastic" - is that sexuality is not binary.
I know straight guys who (despite what gays may fantasize) would not have sex with another guy no matter what. I know predominantly straight guys who occasionally enjoy a shag with another guy. I know guys who swing both ways in equal measure. I know gay guys who are capable of having straight sex with a girl from time to time. And I know guys like me who never even entertained the thought of having sex with a girl, or dating or kissing one - the very idea disgusts me.
It may seem like for people who are capable of swinging both ways (whether in equal measure or with a focus on one sex over the other), sexuality "can change over time", but I don't think this is the case.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:33:36 AM
Anecdotally, I can think of three instances of "sexuality changing over time":
- straight people in prisons, monasteries and the like adopting homosexual behaviour,
- people who considered themselves straight coming out as gay at a later age,
- gay people "praying the gay away" (or undergoing other form of a "therapy") to go straight.
4- Anne Heche
Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2009, 06:04:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 05:29:56 PM
Yeah I disagree but then I tend to lean towards the nature part of the nature/nurture debate. I mean if I wanted to change my sexuality how would I go about it?
I'm typically on the nurture side although I don't know what to make of sexuality. Anyway, trying to have sex with guys would be a start.
I think it is nature AND nurture. The problem with the nurture side of the equation, however, is that too many people equate it with more or less conscious, or at least visible and understandable aspects of upbringing, whereas I think it's more a whole range of environmental influences or "triggers" that are beyond our control.
Can we all agree that
everybody> marti
when it comes to parenting
Quote from: katmai on November 18, 2009, 02:41:35 AM
Can we all agree that
everybody> marti
when it comes to parenting
No. The woman with a 4 yo. in a freezer was worse.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:51:28 AM
Quote from: katmai on November 18, 2009, 02:41:35 AM
Can we all agree that
everybody> marti
when it comes to parenting
No. The woman with a 4 yo. in a freezer was worse.
Well she went 4 years before killing the child. How long would you?
I think sexuality comes, overwhelmingly from nature, and more or less is binary and not terribly fluid <_<
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:51:28 AMNo. The woman with a 4 yo. in a freezer was worse.
I dunno
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 02:38:54 AM
I think it is nature AND nurture. The problem with the nurture side of the equation, however, is that too many people equate it with more or less conscious, or at least visible and understandable aspects of upbringing, whereas I think it's more a whole range of environmental influences or "triggers" that are beyond our control.
I used to be a staunch believer in nurture over nature. I think in college I put it at something like 80% nurture/20% nature. Then I had kids; in particular, identical twins. Now I believe that it's much closer to 50/50, or even 60% nature/40% nurture.
We knew within a few months of life what the kids' personalities were going to be like, and I'll be damned but they proved us right. Now, how we handled them helped smooth out the rough areas and develop their strengths, but over all, I really think that they were born who they are today.
This doesn't mean that pressure from outside couldn't or wouldn't change how they act, but I really don't think it would change who they are.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 08:30:27 AM
I think sexuality comes, overwhelmingly from nature, and more or less is binary and not terribly fluid <_<
I agree that sexuality comes overwhelmingly from nature, but I don't believe it's binary nor static for everyone. For some people, it's just not that cut and dried. I've known too many bisexuals who struggled with who they are and what they want to believe that. They just don't know, and not because of religious infringement or social stigmas, either. Like Buddha, they just never fit into that whole binary way of life, and because of that were fairly fluid in their preferences from one day, week, month, or year to the next.
In my rather un-expert opinion, I think where people fall on the gay-bi-hetero scale is probably mostly nature.
I think their tolerance for their position on that scale is mostly cultural/nurture.
And I imagine most people are closer to the middle of that scale than they would like to admit. This seems pretty clear to me given the example of societies were bisexuality is tolerated or encouraged see a lot more bisexual activity.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2009, 08:45:51 AM
I agree that sexuality comes overwhelmingly from nature, but I don't believe it's binary nor static for everyone. For some people, it's just not that cut and dried. I've known too many bisexuals who struggled with who they are and what they want to believe that.
I've never known a bisexual who didn't end up just being gay. I'm sure there are some bisexuals but my overwhelming experience of it is girls who'll kiss other girls but remain fundamentally straight, or guys who use an odd 'she's hot' comment as a fag leaf for their ever burgeoning homosexuality.
I think most of sexualities fluidity comes from struggling with what they want/are. In my experience if a gay man ever tries to get a girlfriend it's not because he fancies women it's because he desperately wants to be normal.
Quote from: Valmy on November 17, 2009, 06:53:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 17, 2009, 05:55:59 PM
Well, we could start by locking you up in an all-male prision for a few years ... ;)
[On a serious note: "situational homosexuality"]
Having sex with men because there are no women available would not change my sexuality :P
Maybe not; but locking you up in prision and observing the results would certainly be an entertainment for the rest of us, in the best Languish tradition. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 09:01:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2009, 08:45:51 AM
I agree that sexuality comes overwhelmingly from nature, but I don't believe it's binary nor static for everyone. For some people, it's just not that cut and dried. I've known too many bisexuals who struggled with who they are and what they want to believe that.
I've never known a bisexual who didn't end up just being gay. I'm sure there are some bisexuals but my overwhelming experience of it is girls who'll kiss other girls but remain fundamentally straight, or guys who use an odd 'she's hot' comment as a fag leaf for their ever burgeoning homosexuality.
I think most of sexualities fluidity comes from struggling with what they want/are. In my experience if a gay man ever tries to get a girlfriend it's not because he fancies women it's because he desperately wants to be normal.
"Fag leaf" :D Is that an original turn of phrase? If so, it's a good one.
I think that one's basic orientation is set by nature, but that there is a lot of wiggle room for some, a lot of 'that depends on the situation and on society'.
The reason so many seek a "fag leaf" (heh) is that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is so fraught with difficulty in our society (though increasingly less so). Different social pressures leads to a different outcome - it simply
can't be the case that ancient Greeks were just "by nature" more prone to certain forms of homosexuality.
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 09:01:27 AM
I've never known a bisexual who didn't end up just being gay. I'm sure there are some bisexuals but my overwhelming experience of it is girls who'll kiss other girls but remain fundamentally straight, or guys who use an odd 'she's hot' comment as a fag leaf for their ever burgeoning homosexuality.
I think most of sexualities fluidity comes from struggling with what they want/are. In my experience if a gay man ever tries to get a girlfriend it's not because he fancies women it's because he desperately wants to be normal.
Once again Shielbh and I are of one mind.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 09:24:43 AM
Maybe not; but locking you up in prision and observing the results would certainly be an entertainment for the rest of us, in the best Languish tradition. :D
Languish is slowly taking my sanity but it can never take my freedom!
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 09:01:27 AM
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2009, 08:45:51 AM
I agree that sexuality comes overwhelmingly from nature, but I don't believe it's binary nor static for everyone. For some people, it's just not that cut and dried. I've known too many bisexuals who struggled with who they are and what they want to believe that.
I've never known a bisexual who didn't end up just being gay.
Really?
That is surprising. I would guess that you would know a lot more non-straight people than I do, yet I know at least a couple bisexual people who never ended up jut being gay.
My best friends sister went from being in monogamous relationships with a woman, to a guy who she was engaged with, to another woman she almost married, then finally married a guy and now has a child. I guess at some point she could go back to "just" being gay, and you would be right, but it seems rather unlikely - she isn't really the type to do much of anything other than what she wants. She certainly is not going back and forth because she is conflicted about her sexuality, but simply (according to her) because she likes both men and women.
I think a lot of the problem with gays and straights recognizing bis is that since we're attracted to their turnoffs as well as their turnons, we'll just get viewed as filthy hedonists. <_<
What's wrong with hedonism? :huh:
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2009, 09:58:01 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 09:24:43 AM
Maybe not; but locking you up in prision and observing the results would certainly be an entertainment for the rest of us, in the best Languish tradition. :D
Languish is slowly taking my sanity but it can never take my freedom!
How can you be sure you are not already locked in the virtual reality world, with all your thoughts and sensations being fed to you neurally by the yi-hive-mind.
Bis are just failed straight people.
Quote from: Berkut on November 18, 2009, 10:05:34 AM
Really?
That is surprising. I would guess that you would know a lot more non-straight people than I do, yet I know at least a couple bisexual people who never ended up jut being gay.
My best friends sister went from being in monogamous relationships with a woman, to a guy who she was engaged with, to another woman she almost married, then finally married a guy and now has a child. I guess at some point she could go back to "just" being gay, and you would be right, but it seems rather unlikely - she isn't really the type to do much of anything other than what she wants. She certainly is not going back and forth because she is conflicted about her sexuality, but simply (according to her) because she likes both men and women.
Well I was thinking he was just talking about men and in that case, I have to agree. I've never met a bisexual man who was actually bisexual.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2009, 10:20:00 AM
Bis are just failed straight people.
Actually, that's not far off of how I self-identify: "too gay to be straight, but too straight to be gay."
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 18, 2009, 10:27:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2009, 10:20:00 AM
Bis are just failed straight people.
Actually, that's not far off of how I self-identify: "too gay to be straight, but too straight to be gay."
I am insightful, and not without reason.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 10:18:06 AM
How can you be sure you are not already locked in the virtual reality world, with all your thoughts and sensations being fed to you neurally by the yi-hive-mind.
"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?"
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2009, 10:20:00 AM
Bis are just failed straight people.
Bis can't stick with one sex; but there are some who can't stick with one
species. ;)
That brings up the question of whether Brain has ever been in a donkey show.
WTF
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
That brings up the question of whether Brain has ever been in a donkey show.
Playing what role?
Quote from: garbon on November 18, 2009, 10:20:30 AM
Well I was thinking he was just talking about men and in that case, I have to agree. I've never met a bisexual man who was actually bisexual.
Yeah, more or less. I've never known a real older bisexual woman. Only sexually exhibitionist uni (and high school) girls who, though they'd kiss other girls, would only ever really sleep or get into a relationship with men. I generally avoided them. They seemed to have issues.
I should say I'm not wholly convinced by lesbianism. One of my closest friends is a lesbian, though she's currently sleeping with a guy. The other lesbians I've known (at least the pretty ones) seem to have less of an issue with that. I think lesbians are more 'fluid' whereas most gay men I know just wouldn't sleep with a woman under almost any circumstances.
I've known a number of lesbians whom I cannot ever conceive of being in a hetero relationship, and I'm sure they feel the same way.
Quote from: Malthus on November 18, 2009, 09:31:10 AM
The reason so many seek a "fag leaf" (heh) is that homosexuality, particularly male homosexuality, is so fraught with difficulty in our society (though increasingly less so). Different social pressures leads to a different outcome - it simply can't be the case that ancient Greeks were just "by nature" more prone to certain forms of homosexuality.
I broadly agree with that. Though I still lean to the nature side. I think sexuality is rather like gender. You may have a biological sex or sexuality - a preference which is largely driven by nature but also, undoubtedly influenced by nurture. What your sexuality or your gender then is - what that sex or that preference means - is largely influenced, perhaps even defined by your social and cultural background.
Having said that there's a book on Greek sexuality I want to buy because I hope it'll answer whether we know anything about the sexuality of the vast majority of the Greeks. My understanding is that most of what we know about the gay stuff and much of Greek society comes from what was effectively a wealthy upper class. As Britain's history demonstrates it's perfectly possible to have a society in which the upper class are a bunch of buggers while the lower and middle classes are puritanly missionary in their sexual attitudes. Perhaps it's impossible to know about it because a lot of what we know about the less-favoured classes of Greek society come from archaeology, like pot shards, from which it's difficult to try and work out a whole society.
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 10:44:02 AM
I've known a number of lesbians whom I cannot ever conceive of being in a hetero relationship, and I'm sure they feel the same way.
Female sexuality has baffled man for centuries.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2009, 11:02:23 AM
Quote from: Caliga on November 18, 2009, 10:44:02 AM
I've known a number of lesbians whom I cannot ever conceive of being in a hetero relationship, and I'm sure they feel the same way.
Female sexuality has baffled man for centuries.
I still like to think it doesn't exist :)
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 10:47:32 AM
Having said that there's a book on Greek sexuality I want to buy because I hope it'll answer whether we know anything about the sexuality of the vast majority of the Greeks. My understanding is that most of what we know about the gay stuff and much of Greek society comes from what was effectively a wealthy upper class. As Britain's history demonstrates it's perfectly possible to have a society in which the upper class are a bunch of buggers while the lower and middle classes are puritanly missionary in their sexual attitudes. Perhaps it's impossible to know about it because a lot of what we know about the less-favoured classes of Greek society come from archaeology, like pot shards, from which it's difficult to try and work out a whole society.
Uhum, this is pretty much my take on it as well. In any case, any society or social class where arranged marriages are a norm would, imo, have a higher tolerance for extra-marital sexual relationships, at least when engaged in by men (women for obvious reasons would be still ostracized for being adulterous).
The historical uniqueness of our society, when it comes to sexuality, imo, is less connected to the tolerance for homosexual sex, but more to the concept of non-heterosexual identity being central to one's marital relations - I think most societies tolerated buggery to a certain (if varying degree), especially if engaged in by upper classes. We are however unique in tolerating people who identify as homosexual to the exclusion of "normal" heterosexual marriage.
That is why I also think the term "gay" is inapplicable to anything before the 20th century.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2009, 01:06:10 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on November 18, 2009, 10:47:32 AM
Having said that there's a book on Greek sexuality I want to buy because I hope it'll answer whether we know anything about the sexuality of the vast majority of the Greeks. My understanding is that most of what we know about the gay stuff and much of Greek society comes from what was effectively a wealthy upper class. As Britain's history demonstrates it's perfectly possible to have a society in which the upper class are a bunch of buggers while the lower and middle classes are puritanly missionary in their sexual attitudes. Perhaps it's impossible to know about it because a lot of what we know about the less-favoured classes of Greek society come from archaeology, like pot shards, from which it's difficult to try and work out a whole society.
Uhum, this is pretty much my take on it as well. In any case, any society or social class where arranged marriages are a norm would, imo, have a higher tolerance for extra-marital sexual relationships, at least when engaged in by men (women for obvious reasons would be still ostracized for being adulterous).
The historical uniqueness of our society, when it comes to sexuality, imo, is less connected to the tolerance for homosexual sex, but more to the concept of non-heterosexual identity being central to one's marital relations - I think most societies tolerated buggery to a certain (if varying degree), especially if engaged in by upper classes. We are however unique in tolerating people who identify as homosexual to the exclusion of "normal" heterosexual marriage.
That is why I also think the term "gay" is inapplicable to anything before the 20th century.
I dunno if the upper class Greek attitude towards buggery can be classified like the upper class English attitude of tolerance for a bit of decadence. Alexander the Great was not Oscar Wilde in armor. ;)
The Greek attitude seems (if Plato and the like can be believed) to have been based on an extreme level of casual mysogeny, to the point where, for some, relations with women were simply not on a level of equality suitable for profound emotions - they were okay for household drudgery and having babies, but for a real relationships, one must look to other men, and not simply in a sexual manner - either as comerades in arms, like Alexander and Hephastion, or in a master-tutor type relationship.
This is part of why I think sexuality is at least in part more malliable than immutable; if you grow up in a culture that values love between men (and scorns women) as a higher and more philosophic type, your attitudes, and prerhaps your orientations, are going to be very different than if you grow up in one in which love between men is "the love that dare not speak its name", associated with decadence and degeneracy even if "tolerated", etc. Nature clearly plays its part or very few would ever be gay where it is strongly disapproved (who *wants* to be considered a "degenerate" and persecuted?); nurture plays its part as well, or homosexual-type behaviours would never be any more prevelant than now.