Did you "choose" to be gay?

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

I don't actively identify as gay, but I did until about halfway through college. So I think my response is still appropriate in the "ask a gay man" forum.

I like thinking of sexual orientation as a proactive choice. It makes my life far more fulfilling every time I choose to have sex with a man or woman I think is attractive. The only reason to think why a person couldn't choose their own orientation is a false subconscious belief that there is a right and wrong choice to be made.

Honestly, I think believing that one can only be "born this way" is a little homophobic and very heterosexist. This discussion is definitely conflated with the systemic oppression of homosexuality. But that is a separate issue from whom you choose to sleep with and why. Systemic oppression is obviously an important topic. But it's existence shouldn't decide the boundaries of your love life. That would please others around you, but would it please yourself? Only you can answer that question.

In my opinion, sexual attraction is born of sexual experiences. The more sex you have with men, the more attractive you will find them. When you are 100% gay or straight, your life becomes a journey of validation through the kind of sex you have. You are a specialist in your field.

With this set up, you can potentially know much about your homosexuality and very little about your sexuality overall. That's the draw back of becoming a specialist in a narrow field.

The first time I sucked cock, I hated it. My first few years of gay sex were unfulfilling and unsatisfying. I knew I found men attractive, but I just couldn't bring myself to enjoy having sex with them. Part of it was that I was having sex for the wrong reasons. But another big part was that I just didn't have enough experience to understand how to enjoy fucking in the first place. My gay identity was socially constructed in those days, and not true to my genuine sense of self.

To be honest, my first few times having straight sex felt the same as my first few gay experiences. Only I had no socially constructed dogma to push me into enjoying it like I did with the gay sex I chased as a "gay male".

So yes, you CAN choose to be gay, bi, or straight...or something else altogether, like demisexual or pansexual. Out of all these options, THERE IS NO "CORRECT" ANSWER. You just have to remember that choosing your sexuality is not something that can be done overnight. Think of it as choosing whom you want to live with and why, or where in the world you want to live. The only way to truly find the answers you seek is to garner experiences, and then discover how you feel about them as well as to learn from them.

Sex is not automatic, you need to have bad sex before you can have good sex, regardless of whatever kind of sex it is. That's why it takes SO LONG for many people to become confident in their chosen sexuality. It's a part of your life journey, and will only end on the day you die.

Ok. 3 questions
1) Do you choose which person will you find attractive? By that I mean, can you choose to only find men attractive or only find women attractive or find both attractive?
2) You say that sexual attraction is born out of sexual experiences, but how can there be a sexual experience without previous sexual attraction?
3) Also, do you suggest that being gay means enjoying having sex with men while being straight means enjoying having sex with women? Don't you define sexual orientation by the orientation of attraction towards the sexes?

 

[Smaccoms]

Ok. 3 questions
1) Do you choose which person will you find attractive? By that I mean, can you choose to only find men attractive or only find women attractive or find both attractive?
Sometimes, this is very situational. Like I said, there is no right or wrong way to find a person attractive. In arranged marriages, both parties actively choose to find their partner attractive. Their love and attractions builds slowly over time. That doesn't have to be bad.
There are individuals with whom my attraction feels innate. But with others, it's more active. I feel it in the answers they give to important questions I have. I feel it in their response to stressful situations. Their personality makes my life better, and I can choose to find that attractive, and by being more sexual with them.
I think it's a bit of a misnomer to categorize all males together and all females together when deciding whom you find attractive and unattractive. So what if all men have penises? How is that at all related to whether or not you find any one man attractive or not? Just because you enjoy sucking my cock doesn't mean you'll enjoy sucking my brother's cock. Penises and vaginas work well together in any combination to be perfectly honest.


2) You say that sexual attraction is born out of sexual experiences, but how can there be a sexual experience without previous sexual attraction?
No. There are a million different reasons for why two people have sex with another another. Actually finding your partner attractive is just one of them. All you really need to do is let a person bring blood toward your sexual organs until orgasm (maybe). Sexual attraction is 100% unnecessary to make this happen. Is this not obvious?
There's seems to be this societal wide assumption that sex can only be possible if both partners are genuinely attracted to another another. But this is similar to the Republican assumption that rape cannot impregnate women. It's simply false. A man's penis will get hard and ejaculate if another human being's orifice is penetrated by it, period. It doesn't matter if that human is male or female, the penis will orgasm in response regardless. When you jump, your body goes up into the air.
For many, the first few sexual experiences are rife with social conditioning. It's really the easiest way to formulate what you will and will not enjoy. The only personal experience you have are your hormones telling you whom to chase and whom not to chase really.


3) Also, do you suggest that being gay means enjoying having sex with men while being straight means enjoying having sex with women? Don't you define sexual orientation by the orientation of attraction towards the sexes?
Short answer, no I don't. There are more important things.
Long answer: I define sexual orientation as what attracts you toward other human beings and why. What makes you want to fuck someone, and what makes you not want to fuck someone? I suppose the penis and/or vagina might be the most important part of that process for some. You might think to yourself, "I cannot reach orgasm without another penis because I am gay." But strictly speaking, that's false. People put all the emphasis on gender and sex, rather than on building satisfying & constructive relationships. The sex bit will work itself out if you and your partner are compatible. You really ought not to worry about the gay/straight thing until you come to the point in a relationship where sex is the natural next step. I think orientation is mostly situational. Just because the relationship I build with you is gay, doesn't mean the same thing would happen with every other man on the planet. There is no way to tell if you're going to want to have sex with another man or not until you build a strong enough relationship with them. Only then will sex with that person be truly relevant to your life.
I'm more comfortable labeling relationships as gay or straight rather than people. When your single, you could end up with anyone really. You won't know until it happens.

I hope it's okay I answered your questions inside the quote. I just find it easier that way, and I think it makes it easier for other people to read too. Thank you for the questions! I enjoyed answering them.

 

[tncentaur]

No one chooses to be gay--or straight. I think if you are male and find yourself sexually attracted to other males and then you act upon that sexually, either using sexual fantasy about other males for solo sexual release or actually have physical sex with other males and prefer it, then you're gay. I think if you are sexually attracted to members of both sexes and have sex with both, you're bisexual. If you use sexual fantasy about the opposite sex for solo sex and/or prefer to engage in physical sex with members of the opposite sex, I think you're heterosexual. If you like to cross the border every once in a while, you decide what you are, or just do it and don't label it. I am not my brother's or my sister's keeper--it doesn't matter to me what others do. And percentages and scales make about as much sense to me as measuring, as economists do, satisfaction in utils.

I think once you have an established preference and exercise that preference exclusively, then you're one or the other.

What I did choose was, once my preference was established and I was happy, not to have sex with women. That may not be so for others, but it was so for me. Other choices I made: to have sex with men who were happily and exclusively gay. You can read earlier posts about why I did so. So I guess I embraced my sexuality and then, in a move for self determination, made a decision to stay homosexual. For it, that was easier.

For me, I want sex to be simple and uncomplicated. I don't engage in group scenes: I like the psychosexual dynamic of total sexual involvement with one other. No judgment here about what others like.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

I hope it's okay I answered your questions inside the quote. I just find it easier that way, and I think it makes it easier for other people to read too. Thank you for the questions! I enjoyed answering them.

"In arranged marriages, both parties actively choose to find their partner attractive"
To be quite honest, and meaning no disrespect, I don't believe that at all. Of course, a little bit of attraction always exists in 2 persons who are compatible in terms of sexual orientation. Create out of nowhere except time? Not a possible.
"I think it's a bit of a misnomer to categorize all males together and all females together when deciding whom you find attractive and unattractive"
Only if gender had no importance over whether you find someone attractive or not. Do you believe that is valid to other people as well?
"All you really need to do is let a person bring blood toward your sexual organs"
Isn't that a phisiological manifestation of attraction?
"A man's penis will get hard and ejaculate if another human being's orifice is penetrated by it,"
I think you are presuming every men is bisexual. I myself can not even get hard to penetrate a woman's vagina. I believe many gay-identified guys would also say exactly the same.
"You might think to yourself, 'I cannot reach orgasm without another penis because I am gay.' But strictly speaking, that's false"
Actually that is true in my case, it is an impossibility to me to reach orgasm unless I'm imagining, visualizing or interacting with a man. Every phase of the sexual process is unavailable to me without men.
"The sex bit will work itself out if you and your partner are compatible"
What do you think of cases of failed gay conversion therapy? If getting married to a girl will eventually make a gay attracted to a woman, wouldn't every case of reorientation attempt be successful?

 

[aristarchus]

If one reads Smaccoms post carefully, one will find two uses of the phrase "socially constructed." This phrase comes from the "theories" and "science wars" of the 1980s and 1990s, and generally signifies a particular political position, one in which anything one disagrees with can be chalked up to "social construction" including such things as the law of gravity and the existence of the HIV virus (I'm not making this up...), and on the contrary anything one believes can be legitimized by claiming one is breaking free of "social construction" (of course, if one is inside a society could one really do this, or would the impression of breaking free be itself a social constructed illusion?) Most of the social constructionists withered up at the end of the 20th century (except in literature and English departments in universities). While it is unquestionably true that social pressures do indeed influence behaviors, it is also clear from studies that sexualities are largely determined by nature (by which I mean at birth), otherwise it would be difficult to explain the fact that identical twins who are raised separately almost invariably have the same sexuality despite the different environments, and even more difficult to explain the dozens of animal species, which are free of the restrictions and decisions of human society, in which exclusive homosexuality has been observed. Of course, the social constructionists wave these arguments off because they are scientific, and of course, scientific findings are "socially constructed." And so it goes...
It's also worth noting that the responses conflate clinical and anatomical matters with human and emotional ones, a move which I find quite dehumanizing, as if the human heart (and I don't mean the blood-pumping organ) were irrelevant or at best subservient to the stimulation of anatomical members.

 

[Auggiecakes]

I'm 18 and gay, just came out and I this question has irked me since middle school. Did any of you actually choose to be gay? I'm not asking about whether or not you chose to come out or express youself as gay, I'm asking about whether or not you chose to be attracted to other men. It would boggle me if anyone would. I'm all for pride, but who would want to be a part of a minority struggling to fit in?

becoming fed up with the internalized homophobia you got going on......answer your own question and you'll know everyones answer; No. No one choose who they are or the life they are born into. You came out, get used to the idea that life is going to be a little harder for you, now you can whine and feel sorry for yourself or be the man that you are and rise above. Get a job, save enough money to move away as far as you can and start a new life for yourself. You are in florida... move your butt to Miami or Orlando. Surround yourself with other positive people. Your 18 so you got so much to learn, Start by stopping the self hate.

 

[Smaccoms]

"In arranged marriages, both parties actively choose to find their partner attractive"
To be quite honest, and meaning no disrespect, I don't believe that at all. Of course, a little bit of attraction always exists in 2 persons who are compatible in terms of sexual orientation. Create out of nowhere except time? Not a possible.
"I think it's a bit of a misnomer to categorize all males together and all females together when deciding whom you find attractive and unattractive"
Only if gender had no importance over whether you find someone attractive or not. Do you believe that is valid to other people as well?
"All you really need to do is let a person bring blood toward your sexual organs"
Isn't that a phisiological manifestation of attraction?
"A man's penis will get hard and ejaculate if another human being's orifice is penetrated by it,"
I think you are presuming every men is bisexual. I myself can not even get hard to penetrate a woman's vagina. I believe many gay-identified guys would also say exactly the same.
"You might think to yourself, 'I cannot reach orgasm without another penis because I am gay.' But strictly speaking, that's false"
Actually that is true in my case, it is an impossibility to me to reach orgasm unless I'm imagining, visualizing or interacting with a man. Every phase of the sexual process is unavailable to me without men.
"The sex bit will work itself out if you and your partner are compatible"
What do you think of cases of failed gay conversion therapy? If getting married to a girl will eventually make a gay attracted to a woman, wouldn't every case of reorientation attempt be successful?

Of course, a little bit of attraction always exists in 2 persons who are compatible in terms of sexual orientation.
Obviously this is false. It's entirely possible for you to find another gay man vehemently repulsive. Seriously? This is one of the most common stereotypes about gay men...that they want all penises regardless of context. The same is very possible in an arranged marriage. They might have zero physical attractions toward one another. Come back 10 years later though, and it's a different story.

I personally believe that intimacy can create sexual attraction of it's own accord.

Only if gender had no importance over whether you find someone attractive or not. Do you believe that is valid to other people as well?
Of course gender is involved with sexuality. That goes without saying. But to assume it must be the deciding factor for all humans is quite arrogant. You don't know the values of other human beings. They might think very differently from how you do. I should be an excellent example of this concept. We're both male-bodied, and we both prefer men. But look at how incompatible we are despite that.

Isn't that a phisiological manifestation of attraction?
No, it's a physiological manifestation of your penis being healthy. To assume your dick can only get hard because of sexual attraction is silly. Haven't you ever had morning wood? Not always premised with a sex dream, are they? Sometimes it's pure friction. Honestly, erections are a physiological response, kind of like that knee kick reflex test with the doctor. Whether or not attraction is involved is a separate question entirely. I would think this to be obvious because of those random erections that only annoy you because your not horny and your busy doing something else.

I think you are presuming every men is bisexual. I myself can not even get hard to penetrate a woman's vagina. I believe many gay-identified guys would also say exactly the same.
I'm not presuming anything about anyone's sexuality. You missed my point completely. Whether or not you WANT to penetrate a vagina is irrelevant. It's physiologically possible for it to happen...for a gay man's penis to penetrate and ejaculate into a woman's vagina. That's precisely what our penises evolved to do. They evolved to become erect and ejaculate, period. Everything else is just technicality. This whole discussion of "gay versus straight" thing is 100% unrelated to the functionality of the human penis. The human penis will get hard if another human being sucks on it, period. This is an undeniable fact of nature. Why? THAT'S LITERALLYTHE REASON THE PENIS EXISTS...TO EJACULATE!

Of course there is that pissing thing, but a penis is not strictly needed for urination.

Actually that is true in my case, it is an impossibility to me to reach orgasm unless I'm imagining, visualizing or interacting with a man. Every phase of the sexual process is unavailable to me without men.
This is 100% false scientifically speaking. Your ability to orgasm is not directly related to your sexuality. The human body is designed to orgasm regardless of whatever inclinations you have, Orgasms are physiological. How your orgasms interact with your sexual orientation is entirely distinct from the fact that you can orgasm. Just ask an asexual.

What do you think of cases of failed gay conversion therapy? If getting married to a girl will eventually make a gay attracted to a woman, wouldn't every case of reorientation attempt be successful?
Of course forced conversions aren't going to work. You can't force a person into becoming someone they do not want to become. Even if it works, that would be labeled traumatizing and abusive. That is not at all what I'm referring to, and I'm insulted you would even think that. If a person wants to explore the straight side of their sexuality, then they will. It's that simple. It is a personal decision, a choice, and a lifelong journey. It cannot be forced or faked. You cannot find your sexuality through the journey of another. You don't know how straight sex makes you feel? Well guess what? There's only one way to find out. You won't know how you feel about it until the moment you try it, and not a moment before.

Then you finally might be able to make peace with yourself and your sexuality, and not obsess so damn much over whatever kind of sex you prefer.

 

[Smaccoms]

@aristarchus Curious as to my political position, are you? I'm a Marxist, a communist, a revolutionary socialist. You make it sound as if the "nature versus nurture" debate ended a decade or two ago. This would be quite foolish, as it is nigh impossible to prove one side or the other completely correct in anyway whatsoever . I also hope you realize that one of our closest cousins, bonobos, are observed to be almost exclusively bisexual in nature. So technically speaking, anything is possible.

As to your argument that emotions are relevant to the stimulation of our members, of course this is true. My only point is that your emotions are not always involved, and this should be obvious. It is not your emotions that make neither ejaculation nor orgasm possible. We layer our emotions on top of them for the express purpose of building our sexualities. But this is not necessary by any means whatsoever. At the end of the day, an orgasm is just an orgasm. Nothing more nothing less. It might be more eventful than say, a sneeze. But it is no more important once impregnation occurs really. It's just another biological function. Its just there.

 

[dards44]

What do you mean?

18 yo's are not terribly bright. You'll get a lot smarter in the next four years.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

Of course, a little bit of attraction always exists in 2 persons who are compatible in terms of sexual orientation.
Obviously this is false. It's entirely possible for you to find another gay man vehemently repulsive. Seriously? This is one of the most common stereotypes about gay men...that they want all penises regardless of context. The same is very possible in an arranged marriage. They might have zero physical attractions toward one another. Come back 10 years later though, and it's a different story.

I personally believe that intimacy can create sexual attraction of it's own accord.

Only if gender had no importance over whether you find someone attractive or not. Do you believe that is valid to other people as well?
Of course gender is involved with sexuality. That goes without saying. But to assume it must be the deciding factor for all humans is quite arrogant. You don't know the values of other human beings. They might think very differently from how you do. I should be an excellent example of this concept. We're both male-bodied, and we both prefer men. But look at how incompatible we are despite that.

Isn't that a phisiological manifestation of attraction?
No, it's a physiological manifestation of your penis being healthy. To assume your dick can only get hard because of sexual attraction is silly. Haven't you ever had morning wood? Not always premised with a sex dream, are they? Sometimes it's pure friction. Honestly, erections are a physiological response, kind of like that knee kick reflex test with the doctor. Whether or not attraction is involved is a separate question entirely. I would think this to be obvious because of those random erections that only annoy you because your not horny and your busy doing something else.

I think you are presuming every men is bisexual. I myself can not even get hard to penetrate a woman's vagina. I believe many gay-identified guys would also say exactly the same.
I'm not presuming anything about anyone's sexuality. You missed my point completely. Whether or not you WANT to penetrate a vagina is irrelevant. It's physiologically possible for it to happen...for a gay man's penis to penetrate and ejaculate into a woman's vagina. That's precisely what our penises evolved to do. They evolved to become erect and ejaculate, period. Everything else is just technicality. This whole discussion of "gay versus straight" thing is 100% unrelated to the functionality of the human penis. The human penis will get hard if another human being sucks on it, period. This is an undeniable fact of nature. Why? THAT'S LITERALLYTHE REASON THE PENIS EXISTS...TO EJACULATE!

Of course there is that pissing thing, but a penis is not strictly needed for urination.

Actually that is true in my case, it is an impossibility to me to reach orgasm unless I'm imagining, visualizing or interacting with a man. Every phase of the sexual process is unavailable to me without men.
This is 100% false scientifically speaking. Your ability to orgasm is not directly related to your sexuality. The human body is designed to orgasm regardless of whatever inclinations you have, Orgasms are physiological. How your orgasms interact with your sexual orientation is entirely distinct from the fact that you can orgasm. Just ask an asexual.

What do you think of cases of failed gay conversion therapy? If getting married to a girl will eventually make a gay attracted to a woman, wouldn't every case of reorientation attempt be successful?
Of course forced conversions aren't going to work. You can't force a person into becoming someone they do not want to become. Even if it works, that would be labeled traumatizing and abusive. That is not at all what I'm referring to, and I'm insulted you would even think that. If a person wants to explore the straight side of their sexuality, then they will. It's that simple. It is a personal decision, a choice, and a lifelong journey. It cannot be forced or faked. You cannot find your sexuality through the journey of another. You don't know how straight sex makes you feel? Well guess what? There's only one way to find out. You won't know how you feel about it until the moment you try it, and not a moment before.

Then you finally might be able to make peace with yourself and your sexuality, and not obsess so damn much over whatever kind of sex you prefer.

"Mourning woods" and friction are phenomenons that are exceptions to the rule: erections are closely related to sexual arousal. It is almost impossible to achieve orgasm and ejaculation without sexual arousal, at least on ordinary conditions (of course, you could bring up, for example, that temporal epilepsy can cause orgams without any relation to sexuality, or that the pressure of the bladder over the pudic nerve can cause mourning woods, or that vasodilatators can force erections, but those are irrelevant exceptions for obvious reasons).
It is not a "function" of the penis to ejaculate without sexual arousal at all, so your appeals to biologicism makes absolutely no sense. In general, we can say a man is only capable of achieving erection with sexual attraction and can only have sexual intercourse with a woman if he have an erection. Therefore, we can conclude that sexual attraction comes before sexual experiences, not after.
What I said about sexual reorientation therapy was not limited only to involuntary admissions to the treatment. A lot of people willingly submit. While there are some conversion therapies that use electroshock, positive punishment and hormone replacement, in most of the cases the therapy basically suggest that those gay men should marry a woman and eventually, if they try to make their marriage work, they will become attracted to them. So be completely sincere and tell me what do you think it's more probable: that you were always bisexual (getting variations only in preferences) or that every gay men is lying when they tell frustrated histories of trying to be attracted to women by the means you described as possible?

 

[Smaccoms]

"Mourning woods" and friction are phenomenons that are exceptions to the rule: erections are closely related to sexual arousal. It is almost impossible to achieve orgasm and ejaculation without sexual arousal, at least on ordinary conditions (of course, you could bring up, for example, that temporal epilepsy can cause orgams without any relation to sexuality, or that the pressure of the bladder over the pudic nerve can cause mourning woods, or that vasodilatators can force erections, but those are irrelevant exceptions for obvious reasons).
It is not a "function" of the penis to ejaculate without sexual arousal at all, so your appeals to biologicism makes absolutely no sense. In general, we can say a man is only capable of achieving erection with sexual attraction and can only have sexual intercourse with a woman if he have an erection. Therefore, we can conclude that sexual attraction comes before sexual experiences, not after.
What I said about sexual reorientation therapy was not limited only to involuntary admissions to the treatment. A lot of people willingly submit. While there are some conversion therapies that use electroshock, positive punishment and hormone replacement, in most of the cases the therapy basically suggest that those gay men should marry a woman and eventually, if they try to make their marriage work, they will become attracted to them. So be completely sincere and tell me what do you think it's more probable: that you were always bisexual (getting variations only in preferences) or that every gay men is lying when they tell frustrated histories of trying to be attracted to women by the means you described as possible?

lol wow okay

You do realize that the male ejaculation and male orgasm aren't even the same thing right? Both can occur without the other. So no, morning wood and friction erections are not "exceptions to the rule". The amount of effort people will go through to avoid admitting that they're put off by either gay or straight sex is absurd.

If a person really wants to explore the "other side" of their sexuality, going to a reorientation therapy is probably the absolute worst thing you could do. That is an action taken in self hatred, not self love. Just like with any other form of self exploration, it can be done for the right reasons or the wrong reasons. Somehow, everyone obsesses over the wrong reasons when it comes to gender & sexuality while pretending the right reasons don't even exist. What if you meet some you really care about? What if you want to show them how much you care by breaking your current sexuality? Breaking your traditional orientation for someone you love is a good reason, there's nothing wrong with that.

But going to a camp because you hate being gay? That's fucked up, no two ways about it.

Also, who the hell explores the straight side of their sexuality for the first time by marrying a member of the opposite sex? That literally doesn't make sense on any level whatsoever. You don't explore a general interest you have in cooking by applying to be a chef in a 5 star restaurant, do you? It might make more sense to...you know...try cooking something in your own kitchen first?

I was not "always bisexual". In high school and early college, I was a gay male because that's how I identified. By the time I became an upperclassmen, my perceptions of myself had changed because I had garnered enough new/different experiences to realize I wasn't just gay anymore. I was learning to a new sexuality that I appreciated more than homosexuality. I wasn't "lying to myself" in high school. I just hadn't explored that side of myself yet. I was still putting together what it meant to be gay, and whether or not I liked it. Doesn't mean I hated myself. I just didn't have the experiences I needed to make an informed decision about it is all. Your sexuality is not automatic, something you instinctively know. You construct it slowly over time. The more experiences you gain, the more sexual you can be, you can have more powerful orgasms. A strong sexuality is something you learn proactively. It just doesn't appear out of nowhere like puberty does. That's absurd.

 

[KennF]

I'm 18 and gay, just came out and I this question has irked me since middle school. Did any of you actually choose to be gay? I'm not asking about whether or not you chose to come out or express youself as gay, I'm asking about whether or not you chose to be attracted to other men. It would boggle me if anyone would. I'm all for pride, but who would want to be a part of a minority struggling to fit in?

We all are attracted to whom we are attracted to. You can choose to deny what you're attracted to and teach yourself to act straight. But that isn't the same as choosing to be gay.

I am a little upset by your comment about choosing to be a part of a minority struggle. It suggests that, for you, that people don't accept you for you. Gay or straight, you haven't changed.

 

[Smaccoms]

I don't understand why a person is not allowed to choose homosexuality. What's wrong with making that choice? A person is not allowed to want gay sex just because society doesn't approve of it? That's just plain stupid!

I hear so many gay men saying they would never choose to be gay because of heterosexism and heteronormativity. Yet all I hear them saying is, "I cannot and will not approve of my own sexuality." That's the real issue here...the frailty of confidence people have in making that choice.

You might as well just lie down and let the guy down the street pulverize your face into plastic surgery. I cannot stand gay men thinking and believing that if they did actually choose to be gay, that they made the wrong choice. That's BULLSHIT and you know it.

The amount of self-hatred wrapped up inside all of this is just astounding.to me. It makes me SO ANGRY! Be stronger damn it! You got to fight for the right to paaaaarrrrrrttttaaayyyyy people!!! Come on already!

That's the one legitimate point that conservatives have when they ask whether or not it's a choice. The only way you can really counter it is to say that if it were a choice, you're [at the very least] confident & content in the one you made. As in, "Yes, I chose to be gay. Just like you chose to be straight (clearly). I'm happy with the choice I made because there's nothing wrong with it." That will force them into either backing down completely or outlining why they disapprove of homosexuality in the first place.

They'll be forced to answer the question, "Why am I not allowed to choose homosexuality?" Then you will be forced into actually standing up for yourself, into telling someone who disapproves of your sexuality why you don't disapprove. Like I said, BE STRONGER!

 

[phillo12345]

I'm 18 and gay, just came out and I this question has irked me since middle school. Did any of you actually choose to be gay? I'm not asking about whether or not you chose to come out or express youself as gay, I'm asking about whether or not you chose to be attracted to other men. It would boggle me if anyone would. I'm all for pride, but who would want to be a part of a minority struggling to fit in?

No, of course not. The answer to any moron who asks you this is "when did you choose to be straight?"

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

No, of course not. The answer to any moron who asks you this is "when did you choose to be straight?"

Read the posts above and join the madness.

 

[phillo12345]

Read the posts above and join the madness.

You're kidding, right?

 

[phillo12345]

Straight men, more or less , have to fit in - gay men don't really (unless you're into the gym body thing). There are exceptions, however.

I love pride events, as everyone - straight, gay, bi - can let their hair down for a minute. Who cares what makes your cock hard or your pussy wet?

Bigbull, I won't report you to the lpsg brown shirts but you're not supposed to be posting in this forum. I know this because
I had the audacity to post in the "Ask a bi man" forum and my post was deleted because I'm a homo. So don't post here again.

 

[umdoistressilvaquatro]

You're kidding, right?

Smaccoms have that sophisticated rambling that only a chronic fart-sniffer can do. Try reading it from the beggining. But be careful: reading too much smugness in a single shot can kill an unaccustomed man.

 

[phillo12345]

Try reading it from the beggining. But be careful: reading too much smugness in a single shot can kill an unaccustomed man.

If there's a debate somewhere in this thread I don't want to know about it.

 

[dards44]

It was a beautiful spring day in 1926 that I chose to be gay and the rest is history.