Does it really matter if millions of people think they’re gay? It’s not like the human race is in any danger of dying out in the meantime.
Maerzie loves her theory, though. She dotes on it. So does her sister Dozey.
I don’t really care about his/her alleged medical credentials. Anyone posting anonymously on a message board can’t credibly claim any credentials at all since we have no way of verifying those credentials.
True enough.
Maerzie dotes and Dozey dotes on Maerzie’s dopey theory?
Well, wouldn’t you?
If Maerzie is a psychiatrist I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Orientation is defined by attraction. A sexual attraction to a pesron of the same sex is, by definition, a homosexual attraction. A person who is attracted only (or primarily) to people of the same sex is, by definition, homosexually oriented. There is no such thing as only “thinking” you are sexually attracted to one sex or the other. If you “think” you’re attracted, then you’re attracted. There is no such thing a “physiological” definition of orientation. There may or not be a physiological cause for sexual orientation (we don’t really know yet), but orienation itself just describes the attraction, pure and simple.
How about a citation in recent literature for this? I didn’t have any period of homosexual attraction during adolescence. I think you might be projecting.
I, for one, am not ready to refer to you as The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Diogenese the Cynic. 
Don’t worry, you won’t have to!
True, but we are still free to decide whether we think a person claiming such credentials is convincing or not, especially when they are trying to make an argument from the authority of their own claimed credentials. Pressing a new poster to answer questions about those credentials may not provide us with proof but it’s a tool for deciding how believable we find their claims to be. It’s a tool that I think is especially useful for posters like QtM who really do have the credentials that the guest is claiming to have and should be able to spot a fake physician pretty easily.
OK, but just to be clear: has this poster actually claimed to have such credentials in the first place? If so, I missed that…
This is just about the silliest theory of homosexuality I’ve come across. Wait, did I just say “come across”? Cause that sounds totally gay.
Anyway.
If this theory were true, then we could easily change sexual orientation simply by changing hormone levels in the blood. Give a straight man estrogen and he’ll be sexually attracted to males, give a lesbian estrogen and she’ll be sexually attracted to males. Give a straight woman testosterone and she’ll be sexually attracted to women, give a gay man testosterone and he’ll be sexually attracted to women.
This theory has the advantage that it makes a certain amount of logical sense. And experiments with rats tend to confirm this theory…give female rats testosterone and they exhibit male mating behaviors, give male rates estrogen and they exhibit female mating behaviors.
Except when we move to a human model we find that the theory simply doesn’t work. Homosexual men given testosterone don’t become sexually attracted to women. They do have changes in their sexual behaviors, but this is typically expressed as a desire for more sex with other men. And castrated men who no longer produce testosterone do not develop same sex attractions. And giving testosterone to women doesn’t make them want to have sex with women unless they were already lesbian…it can increase their sex drive, but doesn’t change their orientation. Straight women given testosterone still are attracted to men.
This theory that sexual orientation is controlled by hormones is totally, 100%, absolutely false for humans. There is no such link between blood hormone levels and sexual orientation.
As for the contention that people can BELIEVE they have same sex attractions, but really aren’t homosexual, I have a hard time understanding how that works. Reminds me of an anti-drug movie they showed us in high school that claimed that marijuana didn’t make you feel good…it just made you THINK you felt good. Interesting distinction that doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.
Just a note: if you check Maerzie’s profile, you’ll see that she doesn’t claim to be a psychiatrist. I’m puzzled at where she might have obtained this “information” of hers.
Valteron, I just want to add that I’m happy that you managed to recover and live well after all that you’ve suffered. Thanks for sharing your story.
I’d like to challenge the idea that there’s a major stigma against being gay. Gay culture is pretty glamorous these days, and I don’t know a single gay person that tries to hide their sexual preference. Do any of you? Gays are proud of the culture they’ve created, and as far as I can see accepted a lot more easily than the REALLY stigmatized groups, like interracial couples.
I wouldn’t automatically deny the suggestion that some gays might have become perfectly happy adult heterosexuals if not exposed to pro-gay media in their early development. This doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with these people, but I’m convinced that your experience and environment as you grow up plays a big role in who you are as an adult. Don’t psychologists say the same thing?
TWEEEEEEEET!
I know that the credentials pursuit was kicked off by Maerzie’s remark about his training, however, that road has tended to lead to disaster in the past.
Rather than demanding a credentials check, I suggest we simply ask for citations to support claims. I’ve never met an academic who did not have a raft of either/both old textbooks or/and old class notes. The specific claims should be moderately easy to find in either the texts or the notes and we can go directly to the source of the supposed experts who have made the claims without haring off down the trail of trying to identify a poster’s real life identity and bona fides.
[ /Moderating ]
I am entirely willing to believe Maerzie is a psychiatrist.
I’ll try not to let that prejudice me against Maerzie too much though.
a) Is it possible, and reasonable, to posit that lots of teenagers end up internalizing a self-identity as “gay” when in fact they have attractions to the opposite sex that are as strong or stronger?
As others have said, the overwhelming balance of social pressure is such that for every such hypothetical teenager, there must be quite plurally more who internalize (with varying degrees of desperation) a self-identity as “straight” when in fact they have attractions to the same sex that are as strong or stronger.
It might be discernably more true for some populations, most specifically those females who in personality and behavior would be considered to be more akin to males than to other females, and for whom the structures and strictures of the female hetero courting & flirting scripts are a damn awkward fit at best; and, reciprocally, those males who would be similarly (mirror-image) considered to be more akin to females than to other males, who would have perhaps an even rougher time of trying to make a go within the params of the male hetero courting and flirting scripts.
But there, and everywhere, if people who have a stronger attraction to the opposite sex find heterosexual expression to be problematic or blocked to them, let’s pinpoint the social problem, shall we? It sure as hell doesn’t lie with permissive attitudes towards being gay. If your primary attraction is towards the opposite sex, but it’s easier and less frustrating to live as a gay person despite all the social baggage attached to that, then the state of heterosexuality must be damned awful. In other words, to whatever extent this alleged phenomenon can be considered to be a “problem”, the problem is not the welcoming embrace of gay life standing on the margins, permissibly accepted there, to invite them in, it’s the rigid and twisted environment of heterosexual life that is intolerantly casting them out despite their natural predispositions and appetites.
Yeah, I know. There is no b)
Sorry, Opal. I know it’s a new low: the list with just one item.
I’m glad then that gay marriage and adoption aren’t controversial issues. Nor that the insults of choice of kids today (am I too young to say that?) commonly include gay or fag. It is nice that being homosexual isn’t thought of as being conducive to pedophilia or moral corruption, as their welcoming as leaders in the Boy Scouts shows. It’s fantastic that there are no “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policies in the armed forces. I am ecstatic that religions around the world don’t suggest that to be gay or have sex with a partner of the same gender is morally wrong.
Certainly there’s less of a stigma against being gay than in the past. That doesn’t mean that there’s none or that it isn’t major.
In post #5 she makes reference to “my psychiatric training,” which would imply that she has at least been an MD in residency.
Many many profiles on gay meeting websites have no pic or "neck down"only pics. Many (if not most) of the “stealth cruisers” in the chatrooms of these websites are totally in the closet and they’re looking for sex only. Many of these “stealth cruisers” are married (to women) with families and while some know deep down they are gay, some are in a state of denial and say they could never be gay and aren’t gay…they just like getting off with guys now and then. They’ll say things like “straight” “no kissing” “you get me off only” and other things that keep their behavior justifiable to them. Anyone who says there aren’t any gays in the closet is speaking cluelessly. A very large percentage of men who have sex with men are totally in the closet.