From: squires@mozzarella.cs.wisc.edu (Charles Squires)
Newsgroups: alt.personals
Subject: Re: Straight, gay, whatever....
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:44:04 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

yywwyy@mixcom.com (Steven Pearson) writes:
[...]
>	point:  the choice is subtle.  of the cross section of homosexuals 
>	i have dealt with in the past, i've noted several trends:  either
>	the same sex parent missing (or for all practical purposes
>	just not available), or cold.  the other parent seems to often
>	be smothering and doting.  i've noted one exception to this: the 
>	woman had a manipulative mother and a very cold father.  

That is utter bullshit.  I, and most of my gay friends, stand as
counter-examples.  I think you are holding to old myths that have
long ago been dismissed as pseudo-Freudian bullshit.

>	someone doesn't wake up one day and say "hey!  i'm gonna be gay!"  
>	i've seen it come about in a miriad of ways:  childhood experience
>	(hiding in the camper one day with the boy up the hill and playing
>	doctor); bad break-ups with opposite gender signifigant others 
>	("i'll show him/her!"); disillusionment over opposite sex relation-	
>	ships (these seem to be the people looking for one night stands - 
>	the disappointment seems to be largely sexual, and a variety of
>	partners seems to keep them interested); and just good old fashioned
>	sexual experimentation (a good portion of bisexuals start out like
>	this - out of curiosity).  

More myths-- that being gay is "due to" molestation and bad heterosexual
relationships.  It REALLY ain't so.  Many G/L-folk have NO history of
heterosexual experience, and for those who do, it is usually the other
way around-- they KNEW of their homosexuality and got into a hetero-
relationship anyway, to try and hide, or to fight it.

>	this is all based on observations of the gay and bi people i know,
>	or.  i am _not_ a psychologist, but i do try to understand people.  
	     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Obviously not a psychologist, though I'm not sure that's important.  As
far as "trying to understand people" is concerned, I suggest that that
begins with LISTENING to them, and BELIEVING that the experiences they
tell you ARE their experiences ON FACE VALUE.  Who are you to second-guess?

>	i'm a molecular biologist that tries to keep pretty current in the
>	field of what's new, which is why i'm very skeptical of any
>	biological basis for being gay.  

Biological != Genetic.  Your background does not fully qualify you to
make this judgement.  Few molecular biologists I know (and I know several)
would DARE risk their 'scientific' reputations hypothesizing about genetic
links to homosexuality.  It's a fuzzy topic, and it's not generally what
molecular biologists do.

But, I am curious-- what IS the current "molecular biology" research in
homosexualty?  Email me please.  Let's stop boring the rest of the group.

[...]
>	besides, most of the non-rednecks i know think of it this way:  the
>	more gay guys out there, the better the male : female dating ratio
>	is.  heh.

homosexual != male

Lesbians bring the ratio back to what it was before :-)
Too bad for you.  heh.

>	again, before i end this long winded post, if you have _any_
>	abstracts or papers from any decent journal (i.e., one that isn't
>	pop science like "omni" or "discover," both of which are fun mags
>	but not very prone to carrying hard science), i will be happy to
>	read them.  i'll just throw it in with the rest of my articles i
>	have to read...

Meanwhile, I'll wait to see YOUR bibliography.

Charlie
-- 
-  Charles S. Squires, Jr.  ---------------------------------------------
   Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin- Madison
   1210 W Dayton St, Madison, WI 53706; squires@mozzarella.cs.wisc.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------