At what age is a person aware of their sexuality

[Keanumoreira]

 

 

 

Sexuality is a sensitive subject that cannot be easily explained. When I was very young, around my days in preschool, I liked both boys and girls (I didn't know at the time what bisexuality was, and of course, what sex even was. But when I grew older, I realized that I was bisexual.) Sexuality is either something that you inherit (in which I did), can be influenced, or both. Yes, children are easily malleable, but adults don't give them as much credit as they should. If a five year old knows their own sexuality, then I think that this kid can decide for himself. Don't underestimate them.

This is not underestimating anyone. This is a child that seemingly determined that he both knew what being gay was and was indeed gay. I don't think a child that young would know the difference between liking and sincere affection which is love. He would have to be coached by someone that knows what being gay is, for him to make that comparison.

 

This was initiated by another person or group and spread by them without regard to the child.

 

 

Okay, I see your point. Yes, I do agree that a child can have a remote understanding of whether or not they like boys or girls (or both). Affection, a.k.a love? Most likely not, because as you said, they would be too young for that. Makes sense to me.

 

 

HeyYou: You're wrong. A child at that age is too young to understand sex and what love really means, but they can show signs of their sexuality from a young age. Granted, I did not know what sexuality was at the time, but by piecing together clues from my the memories that I still have, I was bisexual then as I am now. I knew that I liked both, but I didn't know what to call it. I'm not the only that I know who had a fondness for both boys and girls at that age.

 

I completely disagree. children that age are not sexual beings. They have no clue what its all about. (love, or sex) You may see what you believe are 'indciators' of your future sexuality while looking back, but, I would more attribute that to looking for a question that you already know the answer to. Your perspective isn't exactly unbiased, you are falling into the same trap that psychologists have in the past. You already know the result, so, it is easy to look at things and say "See this was an indicator." With absolutely zero basis in scientific fact.

 

Children, by their very nature, are incapable of determining their sexual orientation at so young of an age. They have no understanding of sexuality in general, let alone, what it all means.

 

 

I can understand that you don't believe that children possess that kind of understanding because you are speaking from your perspective. Speaking from my perspective, there is no "trap." I knew that I liked both boys and girls. Sexually? No. Intimately? Yes. WAS I attracted? Speaking physically, yes, sometimes, but only because of hormones (obviously, I had no understanding of sex), but not in a real "I am attracted to you" kind of way. The way I see it, a child can possess an understanding of sexuality, but that understanding would obviously be limited and nowhere near as mature as an adult's. You are free to disagree.

[HeyYou]

Hormones don't become a factor until puberty, then they become a raging drive...... Before that age, there is no physiological sexual component. You are both incapable, (for the most part) and lack understanding. You aren't going to convince me otherwise. To much data to back up my side of the argument. :)

[Keanumoreira]

If that's what you believe, then all the more power to you. You are not me, and thus, are incapable of understanding my experiences. Our reality is created by the filter in which our experiences pass through. That filter is called bias. It doesn't matter what data you've collected. I know I'm right because I've lived through it. At the end of the day, it's all that really matters to me. I don't need to convince you to distinguish between what's the truth and what isn't.

 

 

@Hardwaremaster: I'd like to believe that genetics is the factor in determining homosexuality, but I know that isn't true. Certainly, it's a big player, but there are others too. I kind of lean on John Locke's "clean slate" philosophy as much as I do on the side of genetics. Children are very easy to influence. Certainly, someone's sexuality can be altered or even determined by what is taught/witnessed in the household. I'm reminded of an example, a cruel example, but one that gets the point across nonetheless: a child is born to two parents. Genetics determine that he is naturally heterosexual. As part of a cruel experiment, his parents teach their child that homosexuality is the only way, and that being heterosexual is somehow wrong. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that child is conditioned to be homosexual.

Edited October 11, 2013 by Keanumoreira

[MajKrAzAm]

 

@Hardwaremaster: I'd like to believe that genetics is the factor in determining homosexuality, but I know that isn't true. Certainly, it's a big player, but there are others too. I kind of lean on John Locke's "clean slate" philosophy as much as I do on the side of genetics. Children are very easy to influence. Certainly, someone's sexuality can be altered or even determined by what is taught/witnessed in the household. I'm reminded of an example, a cruel example, but one that gets the point across nonetheless: a child is born to two parents. Genetics determine that he is naturally heterosexual. As part of a cruel experiment, his parents teach their child that homosexuality is the only way, and that being heterosexual is somehow wrong. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that child is conditioned to be homosexual.

 

I think it’s doubtful that there is a large genetic component to bisexuality (in contrast to homosexuality). Men seem to be gay/straight, or lie about their sexuality, but I suspect that changing cultural norms are opening straight men to bisexuality. Homosexuals seem to have really strong opinions about "bisexuals" but I'm not sure how useful or grounded in reality those opinions are. But feel free to elaborate on your “clean slate” theory, I'm always interested in theories on the subject.

 

Homosexuality has always been an extreme choice attracting only 3-5% of the population, but based on the passivity and indifference to sexual differences among millenials I expect that at least some transient experimentation will become more common. I'm not sure of any quality statistics that track this over time.

 

You have seen the seeds for this in the steady de-emphasization of sex differences over the past few generations; the contemporary marriage is a rather sexless-looking partnership in which both spouses pursue careers, postpone children (which really brings out the differences between the sexes), and thus stay in a kind of culturally androgynous path far longer than previously, when sexual differentiation became pronounced in adolescence and the types of careers that men and women prepared for.

 

No doubt this is behind the support for gay marriage even among ostensibly heterosexual young adults, the interest in defending transsexuals (which are an even tinier minority), and the anti-bullying push (which is a defense of passivity--note that fighting back against bullies is never brought up in this context, that would require aggressiveness which is a mysterious quality to them).

 

The main drivers then are the passivity produced by social anxiety and the rise of a basically androgynous self-image. I expect more cases of confused orientation to result.

[Keanumoreira]

 

 

@Hardwaremaster: I'd like to believe that genetics is the factor in determining homosexuality, but I know that isn't true. Certainly, it's a big player, but there are others too. I kind of lean on John Locke's "clean slate" philosophy as much as I do on the side of genetics. Children are very easy to influence. Certainly, someone's sexuality can be altered or even determined by what is taught/witnessed in the household. I'm reminded of an example, a cruel example, but one that gets the point across nonetheless: a child is born to two parents. Genetics determine that he is naturally heterosexual. As part of a cruel experiment, his parents teach their child that homosexuality is the only way, and that being heterosexual is somehow wrong. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that child is conditioned to be homosexual.

 

I think it’s doubtful that there is a large genetic component to bisexuality (in contrast to homosexuality). Men seem to be gay/straight, or lie about their sexuality, but I suspect that changing cultural norms are opening straight men to bisexuality. Homosexuals seem to have really strong opinions about "bisexuals" but I'm not sure how useful or grounded in reality those opinions are. But feel free to elaborate on your “clean slate” theory, I'm always interested in theories on the subject.

 

Homosexuality has always been an extreme choice attracting only 3-5% of the population, but based on the passivity and indifference to sexual differences among millenials I expect that at least some transient experimentation will become more common. I'm not sure of any quality statistics that track this over time.

 

You have seen the seeds for this in the steady de-emphasization of sex differences over the past few generations; the contemporary marriage is a rather sexless-looking partnership in which both spouses pursue careers, postpone children (which really brings out the differences between the sexes), and thus stay in a kind of culturally androgynous path far longer than previously, when sexual differentiation became pronounced in adolescence and the types of careers that men and women prepared for.

 

No doubt this is behind the support for gay marriage even among ostensibly heterosexual young adults, the interest in defending transsexuals (which are an even tinier minority), and the anti-bullying push (which is a defense of passivity--note that fighting back against bullies is never brought up in this context, that would require aggressiveness which is a mysterious quality to them).

 

The main drivers then are the passivity produced by social anxiety and the rise of a basically androgynous self-image. I expect more cases of confused orientation to result.

 

 

You bring up an interesting point. If homosexuality is largely based on genetics (we can only assume), then what determines bisexuality? To be honest, I don't know. I grew up around a lot of people who were hostile to homosexuals, but I never really cared what they thought. I assumed my bisexuality was based mostly on genetics. I agree that the shift from heterosexuality into bisexuality is a consequence of modern society, and that some men (women tend to be more open) who are homosexual disguise their preference behind bisexuality, perhaps as a means to be more acceptable in society. I don't know how much of that is true, but it doesn't seem all that far-fetched to begin with. In retrospect, in light of your argument, the "clean slate" theory might make more sense in determining bisexuality than genetics. Who really knows?

[kvnchrist]

 

 

@Hardwaremaster: I'd like to believe that genetics is the factor in determining homosexuality, but I know that isn't true. Certainly, it's a big player, but there are others too. I kind of lean on John Locke's "clean slate" philosophy as much as I do on the side of genetics. Children are very easy to influence. Certainly, someone's sexuality can be altered or even determined by what is taught/witnessed in the household. I'm reminded of an example, a cruel example, but one that gets the point across nonetheless: a child is born to two parents. Genetics determine that he is naturally heterosexual. As part of a cruel experiment, his parents teach their child that homosexuality is the only way, and that being heterosexual is somehow wrong. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, that child is conditioned to be homosexual.

 

I think it’s doubtful that there is a large genetic component to bisexuality (in contrast to homosexuality). Men seem to be gay/straight, or lie about their sexuality, but I suspect that changing cultural norms are opening straight men to bisexuality. Homosexuals seem to have really strong opinions about "bisexuals" but I'm not sure how useful or grounded in reality those opinions are. But feel free to elaborate on your “clean slate” theory, I'm always interested in theories on the subject.

 

Homosexuality has always been an extreme choice attracting only 3-5% of the population, but based on the passivity and indifference to sexual differences among millenials I expect that at least some transient experimentation will become more common. I'm not sure of any quality statistics that track this over time.

 

You have seen the seeds for this in the steady de-emphasization of sex differences over the past few generations; the contemporary marriage is a rather sexless-looking partnership in which both spouses pursue careers, postpone children (which really brings out the differences between the sexes), and thus stay in a kind of culturally androgynous path far longer than previously, when sexual differentiation became pronounced in adolescence and the types of careers that men and women prepared for.

 

No doubt this is behind the support for gay marriage even among ostensibly heterosexual young adults, the interest in defending transsexuals (which are an even tinier minority), and the anti-bullying push (which is a defense of passivity--note that fighting back against bullies is never brought up in this context, that would require aggressiveness which is a mysterious quality to them).

 

The main drivers then are the passivity produced by social anxiety and the rise of a basically androgynous self-image. I expect more cases of confused orientation to result.

 

 

I seriously doubt if anything exterior of the person themselves has any factor on wither you like men, women or both.The easing cultural norms only open up the ability to have an open dialog where these things can be discussed. If the person feels more comfortable to experiment, it is to experiment on something already taken root inside the person, which manifests itself as attraction. This opening up theory you have seems fairly close to the ludicrous question of if gay people are made or born. That whole frame of mind is offensive as Hell to me, because it plays on the idea that love something that can be manufactured.

 

I also take exception to your use of the term extreme choice. There is no choice in who you are attracted to. It is either there or not there and none of these are extreme by the standards of the person feeling them. I too would be careful about the percentages that you use when dealing with sexual attractions, you never know how many are still in a state off denial or simply afraid.

 

Finally, I think the rising support for non traditional guidelines is much more due to society seeing the emptiness of old, tired, outlandish stereotypical claims from the self-righteous fear mongers. People have grown tired of the assumptions of those who claim moral superiority, but have proven themselves as little more than hypocrites and Charltons.

 

Normalcy has become ever more inclusive and the world has not suffered for it. In fact the world seems to suffer more by those who wish to restrict and repress human nature and the biggest example of that can be seen beyond the secular divide.

 

 

[MajKrAzAm]

I seriously doubt if anything exterior of the person themselves has any factor on wither you like men, women or both.The easing cultural norms only open up the ability to have an open dialog where these things can be discussed. If the person feels more comfortable to experiment, it is to experiment on something already taken root inside the person, which manifests itself as attraction. This opening up theory you have seems fairly close to the ludicrous question of if gay people are made or born. That whole frame of mind is offensive as Hell to me, because it plays on the idea that love something that can be manufactured.

 

This Gallup report found about 3.4% of Americans identify as homosexual or "transgender".

 

Gallup found a pronounced difference in identification based on age, with indentification starting at 6.4% and declining through adulthood.

 

Gallup's commentary on the results are the usual timid mainstream cliches--for example, they suggest that older Americans are reluctant to identify as homosexuals due to oppression (lol). More interesting possibilities are that older homosexuals don't identify with prevailing homosexual group identities, higher sexual activity of youth leads to greater experimentation, and that social changes are leading to increased rates of homosexual behavior and an ideological preference for sexual "normlessness".

 

Although I would argue that increases in population density will produce increases in homosexual behavior, it's likely that age plays a significant role. Important parts of the brain are still developing through adolescence and early adulthood, there is a greater influence exerted by (sexualized) mass culture on this age group, and an attenuation of homosexual behavior in later adulthood fits a pattern of reversion to hereditary/biological influences. The question may be when someone is homosexual just as much as if.

[HeyYou]

There is a big difference between sexual preference, and love. I can have sex with someone, without loving them, and I can love someone, without having sex with them. They are two entirely separate issues. Love may not be able to be 'manufactured', but, gays can be. (example already given.)

[Keanumoreira]

 

I seriously doubt if anything exterior of the person themselves has any factor on wither you like men, women or both.The easing cultural norms only open up the ability to have an open dialog where these things can be discussed. If the person feels more comfortable to experiment, it is to experiment on something already taken root inside the person, which manifests itself as attraction. This opening up theory you have seems fairly close to the ludicrous question of if gay people are made or born. That whole frame of mind is offensive as Hell to me, because it plays on the idea that love something that can be manufactured.

 

Although I would argue that increases in population density will produce increases in homosexual behavior, it's likely that age plays a significant role. Important parts of the brain are still developing through adolescence and early adulthood, there is a greater influence exerted by (sexualized) mass culture on this age group, and an attenuation of homosexual behavior in later adulthood fits a pattern of reversion to hereditary/biological influences. The question may be when someone is homosexual just as much as if.

 

 

The question of "when" depends on the individual. People are aware of different things at different points in their lives in respect to the lives of other people. Instinct plays a role in sexual drive, but may not be enough to explain why a person is aware of their sexuality when they are. Experience and intelligence are major factors in determining when this occurs. Sometimes, people have epiphanies and realize things about themselves that they hadn't realized before. Sexuality, perhaps, is gifted to us at birth; maybe John Locke was right, half right, or downright wrong. Maybe when we discover it is a consequence of what led us there in the first place. I don't really think there's one that dominates the other. All these things most likely work together at the same level, a combination of the clean slate, genetics, instinct, experience, and intelligence. So perhaps the "if" is the key to the "when" and vise versa. That might imply that sexuality somehow influences sensitivity, and in this case, emotional intelligence, and thus, awareness of one's sexuality. Could be; most likely, however, a combination.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Keanumoreira

[kvnchrist]

More interesting possibilities are that older homosexuals don't identify with prevailing homosexual group identities, higher sexual activity of youth leads to greater experimentation, and that social changes are leading to increased rates of homosexual behavior and an ideological preference for sexual "normlessness".

 

I would think the reason that one age doesn't identify with another is the differences in experiences, which is fairly normal across the board. I would think the outspokenness that comes with more open attitudes would be more likely the reason older people of any sexual orientation would have to separate themselves from the younger generations. Your use of the term experimentation seems to assume that those who have absolutely no desire for sexual relationships with their own gender would somehow want to try it. Sexual relations are not a new taste sensation at Taco Bell. The desire must be there to facilitate experimentation.

 

Although I would argue that increases in population density will produce increases in homosexual behavior, it's likely that age plays a significant role. Important parts of the brain are still developing through adolescence and early adulthood, there is a greater influence exerted by (sexualized) mass culture on this age group, and an attenuation of homosexual behavior in later adulthood fits a pattern of reversion to hereditary/biological influences. The question may be when someone is homosexual just as much as if.

 

 

As long as there are people within that increase that have feelings for their own gender. Being gay is not a question of age, IQ or any other excuse that can be imagined. It is and has always been an active part of reality. Just because the quote/unquote polite society has lost their ability control the narrative, doesn't mean that the sexuality lives of others have increased or decreased. It just means the repression of others has lessened.