Raised By Single Mothers

I have this theory that men raised by single mothers (grandmas, aunts, women in general) have a higher chance of being gay. If there is a correlation, it may be plausible to say that homosexuality may not be genetic. It would be effected by nurture compared to nature.

I'm not sure how this is going to go. I figured I would just state my hypothesis and see what the results are!

 

I was raised by my father.

 

Are you homosexual? You don't have to answer that.
No one should give out more information than they feel comfortable with.

 

Yes, I am gay.

 

I can think of 4 gay men that I know were raised in traditional two-parent families.
I can only think of one who was raised by his mother after his parents divorced.

I really don't think it would matter.

 

being gay isnt by chance...one cant ''turn'' gay...


one ''is'' gay from birth

 

I think they are often more effeminate; but I don't think it has an affect on sexuality.

The way I see it; sexuality is a spectrum, sure; but in today's society, a guy has to be pretty far to the one side of that spectrum to identify (publicly or privately) as gay. It just seems unlikely that nurturing would have anything to do with it, except for making closet-cases.

 

Wouldn't an only male presence (dad) be more likely to affect the child than female?
I don't really think somebody is gay from birth.
Something might happen at puberty and then - "Hello chaps :biker:"
I do think part of it is nurture.


Has any straight men here had any homosexual thoughts as an adult?

 

Then he would be bicurious or bisexual rather than straight.

 

I didn't mean long term thoughts. Just fleeting moments. I was just thinking, say, somebody has a strong connection with a male friend, and has a stray thought. But this might happen a few times a year. They don't feel sexually attracted to a man - just a brief thought about 'what if'.

I'm not talking about myself here, btw. I was just curious

 

I was raised by my mother and grandmother for the most part, but what exactly is it about female parenting, in your estimation, that facilitates the development of gay men? do the mothers have to be of some "type" before they turn their sons gay?

 

I suppose I am confused because I fail to see how it fits into the premise of the original post.

 

It was a bit of a stray thought - that's all : /

 

Men picking up on feminine traits. Possibly a desire for a strong male role model. Never having a father figure causing one to seek out men to fulfill that void.

I'm not claiming it's true. I was very unsure of my feelings on the subject when I posted. This is just a theory I'm working on developing. Probably an empty theory, but I just wanted to see how the results looked.

 

I'm not speaking for the OP but I've heard it whispered (in those nasty circles that idiots whisper in) that really domineering females produce emasculated sons.

I don't agree.

 

there is no connection between single moms and fag kids...its 1 out of 7....there are dudes from every walk of life and happenstance that are doing each other because they were born that way...no other reason....

parents attempting to suppress a sons homosexual activity or kids of single moms that ''come out'' early is a different debate


people that still believe that one can ''turn'' gay are the same people that deny global warming and watch jerry springer...morons

 

environment does not cause someone's sexuality. it can influence sexual behavior, but not orientation.

i find it really funny how anyone who talks about the environment influencing some characteristic in a person (sexual orientation, or personality traits) equates that environment almost exclusively with the kid's parents. that's a load of crap. a kid's environment is not just his parents. environment is school, TV, his friends and their families, travel, etc, etc. kids have plenty of role models outside their parents. it is rarely that someone quotes their dad/mom actually being their role model. so unless the parents bring the kid up in a cellar isolated from the whole rest of the world they can't be said to have influenced anything really.

if one wants to study how an environment might influence a certain characteristic in a person, this is how you do it: you observe the kid from birth till whenever it's adequate to claim a kid has said characteristic. that's everything, all the major experiences he has in life. you make a note when the kid first exhibits the characteristic under study. you study what had happened in his life until that far and if anything can be said to have 'caused' that characteristic. you observe when that characteristic consolidates in his personality (or sexuality). you study all the experiences until then and see if there are any associated trends. you have to make thousands of case studies before you can start making any adequate claims. you have to be able to distinguish between what is an actual characteristic and what is just a circumstantial reaction. this is how a correlation between an environment and a personal trait should be studied. no such studies have ever been made. all claims about the environment 'causing' this or that is pure fiction and wishful thinking (it's mostly some parents blaming other kids' bad behavior on their parents, while on the other side it's other parents wanting to take credit for whatever achievements and success their kid accomplishes in life. that's probably where this thing has originated). saying being raised by a single mom will cause a boy to be gay is not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis. it's taking one bit of the environment and ignoring everything else. if you want to make a case for the environment you have to take ALL of the environment under consideration. not focus on parts you like and discard all the rest. this is the same as saying kids who study math at school will become mathematicians. complete nonsense.

as far as guys picking up feminine traits from their single moms, with that you're basically claiming that all gay guys must be effeminate, while in reality the majority of gay guys are not. again, this is picking a single piece of the environment and ignoring the rest of it. it's like looking at the sky seeing the sun on the horizon and dressing lightly for the walk on account of that, ignoring the fact that you have thunderclouds overhead.

exactly.

 

I'm So Glad You Said This, Because When You Posted Your Pic In The

Members Section, My "Gaydar" Went Through The Roof....

Recently I Thought It May Be Broken, Or At The Very Least Severely

Impaired, But Hey, Everythings Still Working 100%......:2thumbsup:



Cheers Glen.

 

meridianwest, it would be nice if we were all unique original human beings - but we are not.
There are stereotypes and there are generalities.
Imho, you do not have to have gone through a life-time of scrutiny for somebody to make judgements.
There are swathes of data relating to generalisations - and for most they ring true.

Why do people say:
All politicians are the same.
All Conservatives are the same.
All Labour party members are the same.
You are so left-wing.
You are so right-wing.
etc etc etc

Is this because somebody has dissected every aspect of a person? I doubt it.
Have you ever made any sweeping generalisations such as that?

 

Very true!

Understanding your environment is essential for your survival on many levels. Though very much on the right, my folks always insisted that everyone's private life is his or hers, and no one else's business.

I am sure that I was born gay. But the fact that I have had a good, fulfilled sexual life, largely free of frustrations, fears, etc., has had very much to do with the permissive immediate environment I grew up in.

I also see environment to be a very complex matter. Yet, the immediate environment is usually much more important than the wider environment we all live in. It is one thing to know that your folks won't really be getting involved with your sexual exploits, and quite another thing to know that your neighbors, and even your role models may or may not be approving of your ways. I am here intentionally excluding ultra-orthodox societies that may be actively persecuting homosexuality as part of their ideological crusade.

I have noticed that a number of my gay friends have had a functionally absent father while growing up. Again, I do not believe that this functional absence of the male figure caused their sexual orientation to be gay.

I also believe that many of the gay men who lacked a strong and functioning father-figure often seek dad-son, younger-older bro relationship types. I find this compensation trait to be somewhat expected, if by no means an automatic, unavoidable development.

Dad-son relationships are always more visible as being gay than equally gay relationships within the peer group. This is probably one of the reasons why some people, including the OP start suspecting that the absence of the male figure in youth development influenced someone's sexual orientation.


KD