@ Yj

Your memory not so good for early years, then? Mine is strangely accute for that sort of thing (short term memory is shocking) to the point that I still get annoyed about things that happened before I was seven :p. During a morning assembly in the first year of school, for example, my best friend was poking me repeatedly for shits and giggles. I got a bit fed up by this after a while and gave him a well deserved punch, which was sadly noticed. And guess which poor sod was told to sit in the corner? Me! The innocent one!

One of these days I'll find him and get him back :)

But no, my instinct is that I don't think you'd have been attracted to cock. Interested in them, perhaps (everyone is at the end of primary school age), but not attracted to them per se.

YJ, that is false. Plenty of people are curious and/or experiment without having a longterm homosexual orientation. One can ask semantic question, of course, about whether they had a particular orientation and "grew out of it," or were just passing through a brief phase that never amounted to an orientation. But either way, the point is that it's an easy time to be confused.

Gay sensitivity classes are about as necessary as racial sensitivity classes, or that women's Lib crap. We live in a society where a majority of people are accepting of homosexuals, especially among youth. You've crammed the idea that gays are normal down peoples throats through popular television long enough that most children born today will never need any 'training' in tolerating homosexuals. All you're going to do at this level is confuse children and cause them to question themselves before they are fully sexually developed and ready to determine their sexuality.

Anyone who promotes homosexual education for children under the age of fourteen is someone who wants to brainwash the world into accepting some kind of pansexual take over of every individual on this planet.

"crammed the idea that gays are normal down peoples throats through popular television" Name one popular television show that portrays gays as normal. If you can do that (which I highly doubt) name one over 10 years old.

Semck, I really doubt it, you know that? Now they may identify as straight, since in our binary society the mainstream only gives them two choices - but I think it likely they still think of cock as much or as little as they likely did as a young man. The only confusion being sorted out is that they found the pigeonhole they most conform to.

Sexuality is not binary for most people, and there are a LOT of 90/10's out there who identify as straight and have never acted on the 10.

There are also many 60/40's who tried it out, had a bad experience, and never want to deal with that again. They will also by and large identify as straight.

@octavious no I remember noticing breasts at about 11 or 12 and being VERY interested in them. I don't think my concept of a vagina was really solid at that point though.

YJ, sexuality definitely changes. I have a friend who was pretty confidently straight until he was about 17, and then started to like men too. About a year later, he had completely "grown out of" his attraction to women.

ghug I'm not trying to say sexuality is stagnant, it does evolve and fluctuate dependent on many different factors. But I don't believe that if you ever were truly attracted to one gender you will "grow out" of that. I would suggest (with admittedly reserved confidence) that your friend was never really interested in women to begin with. He probably just thought he was supposed to be, so he went with that. As he aged, he became aware of what it was he was REALLY into, so he dropped the pretense - hell he may not even be aware that it WAS a pretense.

If what you are saying is true, then why is it virtually unheard of for a person who was gay as a teen to lose every element of that? The only difference between the two scenarios is that one of them has an enormous social pressure to conform and hide as a young person. 100% gay people don't become straight, ever. Do they? So it seem to me to then follow that 90/10's don't ever lose that 10% either.


100% speculation.

what percentage bullshit?

YJ, I think it's true that someone who is a certain way for all of their teenagehood isn't going to change, but I think that there are fluctuations when people are younger, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect change.

It's two different things to consider it possible and to expect it. Considering the number of publicly gay couples is only rising, the numbers say it's probably unfair to expect a change. I have plenty of gay friends that don't appear to be changing any time soon. I have plenty of bisexual friends that are fine either way and just don't consider gender a factor. It's one way of thinking about it I guess. It's just unfair to expect someone to become straight as if by magic without having a clue who they are or what environment they live in.

And to all this talk of brainwashing for you worried folks out there... how much would it have taken to make YOU gay? No? Then what are you worried about?

bo, that's not what I mean by expect. I mean that it's perfectly reasonable and not at all surprising if change does come.

No, it's not surprising, but that means you are considering it possible, not expecting it.

YJ,

I actually agree that it's not really binary at all, but that only makes it all the more unhelpful to encourage people to think about this young in the (binary) terms you have suggested. Tell kids that they may be "gay," and that if they've ever desired another of the same gender then they'll always be "gay," and you think that won't lead to confusion for a 70/30 or two?

Well, that's not precisely what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting tolerance and respect regardless of where one falls on the Kinsey scale. What this school is doing is a step in that direction - whether it reinforces a binary norm or not is a much smaller matter - and I'm not sure that they are, for all we know their teaching Kinsey.

If we remove the social stigma that goes hand in hand with having romantic feelings about the same sex (i.e. being "gay" to any degree) then they'll be more likely to accept the way they (and others!) feel without shame or the need to humiliate. Confusion isn't caused by gayness. Confusion is caused by society's reaction to one's gayness. Homophobia is a learned behavior and early education can take long strides towards fixing it.

Yeah, I was responding to the sub-conversation, which rh started and you replied in, about the hypothesis that they were encouraging thoughts about identity etc. Encouraging people not to humiliate others is not something I'm worked up about.

In California we have a law that mandates teaching about homosexuals and/or homosexuality in *every* subject in *every grade. A few points come to mind: 1) I don't want my elementary school children sexualized in any way in early elementary, and 2) The bare facts of life should be enough in grades 4-6, along with ways to protect yourself, and the fact that we should be tolerant of people with other sexuality as well as with the same. 3) This privileges sexuality above gender, above ethnicity, above every other group. 4) There is no place for sexual references in elementary school math, for example. I can see it now: "John had four condoms and he gave two to his boyfriend. How many condoms total will they have left tomorrow morning?"

Well, I don't think its at all bad to encourage thoughts about identity. It's a much more awkward conversation for an adult or a teen than it is for somebody who isn't yet aware of the awesome power of sexuality.

or should I say "fully" aware.

Also, for those troubled by sexual orientation issues, my reading class today read a psychology textbook excerpt on what attracts people to each other. One is physical attractiveness, another is similarity to oneself, a third is being with someone a lot, a fourth is that we tend to like people who like us, and even more, people who now like us but didn't use to. In addition, it's pretty normal for young guys especially to want sex in whatever form they can get it, and older guys often take advantage of that fact to recruit young guys--and I've read that most guys have their first sexual experience--not necessarily intercourse-- with another guy. Also, according to a friend of mine who used to counsel people, sex is more addictive than heroin. Conclusion: just because a person has had one or repeated homosexual experiences, that doesn't mean he is innately homosexual. And finally--The Bible is very clear about homosexuality being a sin--but it's just as clear about overeating and many other sins. As Jesus said, let him who is without sin throw the first rock.

lol thank you Mutejus, for the slippery slope argument from the religious faction. Very enlightening. That being said, the argument I just made to Semck applies equally to yours in 1): there is a very big difference between "sexualizing" and "sexual education."

I agree with 3), all diversity elements should be represented. That being said, gay rights are the only ones of the deserving groups you have mentioned that are still being trampled with the full support of the state. This is the next big equality movement, we are living in it. It shouldn't be shocking that more progressive schools are making this a priority.

As far as 2) well, I'll make the same response I made to redhouse when he said a blanket probation against violence is enough. It isn't. Yes, it would HELP with direct violence/harassment, but Gays are targeted specifically like no other group is at this time in America. This solution just sweeps the problem under the blankets - so you're left with a more subtle hatred that isn't given direct outlets.

^^

speaking of arguments from the binary norm :P

@Mutejus that is. (double ^^)

If Jesus were alive today I wonder what he would say, is there any proof that Jesus wasn't gay? With all those guys he used to hang about with I expect he was at the very least bi-sexual. In those what was the chance of getting to 33 without getting married or having kids .... I rest my case. So if it good enough for Gaylord it's good enough for all of us ...... rimming though, I'm not so sure about that.

"In California we have a law that mandates teaching about homosexuals and/or homosexuality in *every* subject in *every grade."

Well this is a blatant lie.

"about as necessary as racial sensitivity classes, or that women's Lib crap."

hey KA how's the symphony coming?

@Mujus that math joke was hilarious, thanks.

"-and I've read that most guys have their first sexual experience--not necessarily intercourse-- with another guy"

dafuq