i have wondered about this for some years.

while there would still be a sizable difference between those who are persecuted by others just because society teaches children to climb on others to be top of everything, it seems this level of sexual domination is fundermental to most western societies teenage development.

thesis proposition(moot)
"a teenage boy that is not a sexual predator becomes predated"


look my country is number 4, how shit is that for a country with legalised gay marriage.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_you_mal-health-suicide-rate-young-males

did you know... ?
that if a freind of your teen has committed suicide then it increases their chance of committing suicide by about 4 or 500 % ... ?
(something like that it may be even higher)

i think teenage sexual development and teenage suicide are intrinsically linked.

I'm not so sure where you got the notion that suicide is a "statistic of oppression of homosexuality" although I'm sure it's a huge factor in many suicides, going by what little your post actually mentioned of homosexuality.

I think boys in general may have more social pressures, and pressures related to sexuality and relationships would certainly rank at the top. Homosexuality is often hard for guys to come to grips with, even in adulthood.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...te-young-males
Jiminy! Wonder what Greece does to keep suicide rates so low?!? Oh... brotherly love... Greece... :o

A lot of those numbers are bogus. Not everyone counts suicides with reasonable accuracy.

The US, for example, does not include an estimate of the car crash fatalities that are suicides. In the US suicide by car is fairly common.

In my childhood town, a few years apart during my youth, two teenage boys died "accidently" by running the same stop sign, crossing the same highway and shoulder and (fairly deep) ditch, and squarely hitting the same stretch of brick wall at speeds over 80 mph. No notes, either time, both late at night without witnesses, country road. After the second one about thirty feet of the wall was removed and replaced with wooden palings too light to reliably kill a driver, and AFAIK no one has hit it since.

"a teenage boy that is not a sexual predator becomes predated"
Nonsense.

iceaura
that link has been removed or disconnected or the page of data has been removed.
must have rubbed someone up the wrong way.

Nonsense.

you say it is nonsense ... BUT ... you do not say why

if someone says the nazi extermination camps were really bad and i said nonsense then what ?

your comment is quite clearly defining you as a troll.
you didnt add to the debate or give an intelligent reply/opinion.
your just setting yourself up early to be one of the hater lynch mob of yocal rednecks.
you probably do this quite allot on these boards then claim yourself to be leader of the tards because you said bullshit first and shone the torch where the other mental dead beats go to flog someone for a power trip.

if your not going to add to the actual topic being debated then sod off.

you say it is nonsense ... BUT ... you do not say why
Oh my bad, I gave you credit for minimal intelligence.
It's nonsense because it's an unsupported statement, and is contrary to direct experience.

Oh my bad, I gave you credit for minimal intelligence.
It's nonsense because it's an unsupported statement, and is contrary to direct experience.

oh my bad... and here is me calling myself a necromancer when all along you obviousely MUST be one to talk with these dead boys about their coming out after they are dead.
gee whiz
more credit you for doing counseling for the dead

yet still you give no evidence of it not being true.
you just yell "no it isn't with a minor deriding tone.
are you trying to set a play ?

or just too scared to actually out yourself in a real debate by posting some actual thought processes and explanations of emotional/sexual dynamics in operation that you know and thus prove it is not true ?

or am i wasting my time trying to convince a child to debate grown up things ?

oh my bad... and here is me calling myself a necromancer when all along you obviousely MUST be one to talk with these dead boys about their coming out after they are dead.
More faulty "thinking" on your part.

yet still you give no evidence of it not being true.
And you still give no evidence to support your comment...:rolleyes:

or just too scared to actually out yourself in a real debate by posting some actual thought processes and explanations of emotional/sexual dynamics in operation that you know and thus prove it is not true ?
Again you miss the point.
If this were a debate you'd offer more than an unsupported statement.

More faulty "thinking" on your part.

faulty ?
like i am broken unable to work properly ... ?
more slurs come out but in the first sentence now.
your getting blatant.
im sure you will be using direct insults soon even ones the tard groupies of yours will understand.


And you still give no evidence to support your comment...:rolleyes:

and you are using debunking 101 tard style made for the tard readers and following tards.
you offer absolutely nothing your self yet claim i am wrong and have a mental deficiency to boot the same as the inference of the word "nonsense" i have no sense...
your subtle to start off with i must admit.
but... as fort your debunking skills... well your completely shit at it.
well when it comes to people who have a few brain cells to rub together.
go on! roll your eyes to pronounce how ridiculous it all is compared to all the facts you HAVE NOT POSTED to support your obvious trolling of this thread.

Again you miss the point.
If this were a debate you'd offer more than an unsupported statement.

if it is not a debate then why are you making such effort to try and claim i am wrong ?
when you do not offer any evidence ?

again more blatant trolling / level 101 debunking bullshit.

you have obviousely been lording yourself over some real dimwits or children and think your half assed level of try hard bullying works on intelligent people, but you just found out it doesn't.

faulty ?
like i am broken unable to work properly ... ?
Correct.

im sure you will be using direct insults soon even ones the tard groupies of yours will understand.
Fatuous and irrelevant.

and you are using debunking 101 tard style made for the tard readers and following tards.
Incorrect: you made an unsupported assertion and have still to back it up.
Can you do so or are you going to continue spouting nonsense?

you offer absolutely nothing your self yet claim i am wrong
Because you offered nothing.
An assertion for an assertion.

facts you HAVE NOT POSTED to support your obvious trolling of this thread.
Again you miss the point: why should I post any facts when you yourself have not done so?

if it is not a debate then why are you making such effort to try and claim i am wrong ?
That's quite simple: you're talking bollocks and should be made aware of it.
Then maybe you'll think before posting/ asserting in future.
But I doubt it.

you have obviousely been lording yourself over some real dimwits or children and think your half assed level of try hard bullying works on intelligent people, but you just found out it doesn't.
And once more you resort to specious babbling instead of addressing the point.
Intelligent people?
I sincerely hope you're not deluded enough to include yourself in that category, although I suspect you do.

Correct.
Fatuous and irrelevant.
Incorrect: you made an unsupported assertion and have still to back it up.
Can you do so or are you going to continue spouting nonsense?
Because you offered nothing.
An assertion for an assertion.
Again you miss the point: why should I post any facts when you yourself have not done so?
That's quite simple: you're talking bollocks and should be made aware of it.
Then maybe you'll think before posting/ asserting in future.
But I doubt it.
And once more you resort to specious babbling instead of addressing the point.
Intelligent people?
I sincerely hope you're not deluded enough to include yourself in that category, although I suspect you do.



i like the way you use the mentality of a child to simply say
"no i'm not you are!"
and
"i wont until you do!"
and
"i am because you are"

just because you break it down into little pieces for your tard followers to read and think your being clever, but all you have managed to do soo far is prove your ego has complete control of your mind and body.

you are INCAPABLE of discussing the subject.
you knew that when yo first came into the thread and have persisted in trying to destroy the thread by spamming it with your child like ego rant over and over again.

your a TROLL pure and simple.
i know that
you know that
you just pretend to hide it in your pretense of pedantic division of points using the quote function as if your actually thinking about things when all along your just dead set to disrupt and destroy the topic and the discussion.

but... because there is such a dominance of young teenagers now that post more prolifically you think you can go unnoticed.
well you cant!

your a cynical condescending troll that has been feeding of the cynicism's of the young group playing around as the slap stick cynicist.
that's all your good for, all you can do.

thats all you have posted in this thread.
over and over
again and again.

you have reached your wits end of intellectual ability and here it is to see for everyone to read.

how sad.
funny how your ego had to keep control and drive you head long into a brick wall.
you just cant help yourself.

anywho...
i am bored with you now as there is nothing left of your mind to engage with.
your spent intellectually.
toodles.

your on my ignore list now Oli
your in good company
have fun.

i like the way you use the mentality of a child to simply say
"no i'm not you are!"
and
"i wont until you do!"
and
"i am because you are"
I see: it's okay when you do it, but it's not acceptable when others respond in like manner.
That's called "double standards" and "hypocrisy".

just because you break it down into little pieces for your tard followers to read and think your being clever, but all you have managed to do soo far is prove your ego has complete control of your mind and body.
And once more you resort to insults rather than addressing the point.

you are INCAPABLE of discussing the subject.
Au contraire: I have discussed the "point" it's a nonsense supposition with no supporting evidence.

And the self-appointed "master of psychology" does his usual trick: fails to address the question, resorts to insult and then disappears from the thread or uses the ignore function.
You have all the psychological acumen (and temperament to match) of a five year old.

“
Originally Posted by ripleofdeath
i like the way you use the mentality of a child to simply say
"no i'm not you are!"
and
"i wont until you do!"
and
"i am because you are"
”
I see: it's okay when you do it, but it's not acceptable when others respond in like manner.
That's called "double standards" and "hypocrisy".

“
just because you break it down into little pieces for your tard followers to read and think your being clever, but all you have managed to do soo far is prove your ego has complete control of your mind and body.
”
And once more you resort to insults rather than addressing the point.

“
you are INCAPABLE of discussing the subject.
”
Au contraire: I have discussed the "point" it's a nonsense supposition with no supporting evidence.

And the master of psychology does his usual trick: fails to address the question, resorts to insult and then disappears from the thread or uses the ignore function.
You have all the psychological acumen (and temperament to match) of a five year old.

Male suicide rates are far higher than female suicide rates. Therefore more men are gay compared to women. Would you agree riple?

Haha. I always wanted to commit suicide since I was 8. I never told anyone cause I'd rather save the trip to the shrink. Still contemplate it now and again, I'll probably do it a little later down the road. I want a nice quiet death, and for my body to never be found. I don't really mind saying that on here cause none of you know me.

I see: it's okay when you do it, but it's not acceptable when others respond in like manner.
That's called "double standards" and "hypocrisy".


And once more you resort to insults rather than addressing the point.


Au contraire: I have discussed the "point" it's a nonsense supposition with no supporting evidence.

And the self-appointed "master of psychology" does his usual trick: fails to address the question, resorts to insult and then disappears from the thread or uses the ignore function.
You have all the psychological acumen (and temperament to match) of a five year old.

Haha. I always wanted to commit suicide since I was 8. I never told anyone cause I'd rather save the trip to the shrink. Still contemplate it now and again, I'll probably do it a little later down the road. I want a nice quiet death, and for my body to never be found. I don't really mind saying that on here cause none of you know me.

Religious reasons not to commit suicide: Hell and lower rebirth.

Atheistic reasons not to commit suicide: Moral reasons not to commit suicide, legal reasons not to commit suicide.

My reason you shouldn't commit suicide: You matter!

Be brave, go and see your doctor :)

Seriously, do moderators even bother reading this garbage? I read this page of nothing but unfounded and bizzare arguments and did not find a single peer reviewed article or survivorship chart about the subject. ripleofdeath, how can I (or anyone else) accept your arguments as fact when you never cite anything that is creditable? When it comes right down to it all you did was speculate some bullshit and make childish arguments.

Emmz, do you think your being clever and cute ?
well you are not.
your just aligning yourself with a troll.


Seriously, do moderators even bother reading this garbage? I read this page of nothing but unfounded and bizzare arguments and did not find a single peer reviewed article or survivorship chart about the subject. ripleofdeath, how can I (or anyone else) accept your arguments as fact when you never cite anything that is creditable? When it comes right down to it all you did was speculate some bullshit and make childish arguments.

the childish comments came way of Oli who i have added to my ignore list.
you followed the path laid out for you to follow and you lapped it up like a retard sheeple.
You talk of peer this and published that making comments stating your desperation to simply agree with what is already been written.
thus making your input into anything a complete and utter waste of time.
the very fact you post in here shows not only your complete ignorance and desire to simply follow the flock and be yet another clone but it also reinforces the numbing down and troll like behaviour of Oli.

Did you read the thread header ?

can you actually make up your own mind without being told what to think and how to think it ?

FFS what happened to all the free thinkers ?
there seems to be no shortage of arrogant parroting sock puppets looking to chop down any tall poppy that happens by for a little sadistic ego gratification.

it doesn't make you smart calling another persons ideas stupid.

you don't even measure up for the debate until you can actually form your own opinions.
FFS grow a spine and a little personality and independence of thought.

Male suicide rates are far higher than female suicide rates. Therefore more men are gay compared to women. Would you agree riple?

Actually, that may well be the truth, in a way. From what I recall, most studies on sexual preference have shown a greater prevalence of exclusive homosexuality amongst men as opposed to women. To use the Kinsey scale, that would be the equivalent of a 5 or 6. The overall prevalence of moderate to exclusive homosexual attraction is roughly the same for both sexes (Kinsey 3-6), but the 5+ range is more likely to be populated with males rather than females. Interestingly, a study I saw recently suggested that women may be more prone than men to degrees of bisexuality, as if their sexuality is more mutable. However, I must make note that it was only one study's findings, which were not quite compatible with the overall literature on the subject.

IF men are more prone to being strictly homosexual (as appears to be the case) then it is logical to assume that more men would be driven by their sexual preference to commit suicide or other self-harm.
Further, it is my personal belief based on what I have observed that attractions between men have never been as acceptable as those between two women. Pornography displays lesbianism and bisexuality between women very constantly. There isn't a similar level of interest from women to see two men going at it. This "lesbian-for-pay" (for lack of better term) phenomenon can be seen on TV, too, in the form of Girls Gone Wild. The few times I saw Guys Gone Wild commercials (yes, there is a male-oriented one) I noted that I did not see any interaction between the guys.
Of course, the major reason for that would most likely be that there is no major market for guy-on-guy action on a broad level.

However, I think the amount of exposure of bisexuality in women in the media (only a little in mainstream media, most of it would be more porno-oriented) and the lack of a male equivalent in the same arena only reinforces the notion that male on male attraction is not acceptable.

Compounding this is the disparity about what same-sex attraction does to one's gender identity. Unless you're a butch, masculine woman (bull dyke!) and have definite masculine traits, female homosexuality does not generally get portrayed as making a woman less of a woman.
Conversely, males attracted to males are often associated with femininity, thus making them lesser men on the masculine social ladder. This is regardless of whether they are masculine acting or not.

There is more pressure on men to conform to what is considered typical masculine behavior. Women have more leeway when it comes to gender boundaries. When they cross those boundaries, the consequences aren't the same.

Those are my personal observations, but I believe they are not unsound.

So, without so many words, I think that there is good evidence that men may tend to more exclusive homosexuality than women and that the psychological trauma of such has more impact than if one was simply bisexual or heterosexual. And I think it's reasonable based on some of the evidence I gave that female homosexuality is better tolerated, and hence not as a big an impact on female suicide.

Sorry if that was a slight diversion from what you were getting at... :o I'm good at diversions.

"a teenage boy that is not a sexual predator becomes predated"

what about people who aren't picked on and aren't predators, as well as predators who are picked on. some people get bullied and hate all forms, some people are bullied and adopt the behaviour to gain control. i'd agree that some teenage boys pick on each other to project a certain image to avoid being preyed upon, was that what you were getting at?

edit: even if everyone here is just trolling, you need to address the criticisms. i understand your frustration, and by all means keep the vitriol pumping, but continue the discussion at the same time.

Seriously, do moderators even bother reading this garbage? I read this page of nothing but unfounded and bizzare arguments and did not find a single peer reviewed article or survivorship chart about the subject. ripleofdeath, how can I (or anyone else) accept your arguments as fact when you never cite anything that is creditable? When it comes right down to it all you did was speculate some bullshit and make childish arguments.

True.:eek:






Did you read the thread header ?

can you actually make up your own mind without being told what to think and how to think it ?

What exactly are you doing and saying here? You're being extremely combative for no good reason.




it doesn't make you smart calling another persons ideas stupid.

you don't even measure up for the debate until you can actually form your own opinions.
FFS grow a spine and a little personality and independence of thought.

You put a few underdeveloped opinions in your opening post, none of which either proved anything, or from what I can see, attempted to do so. You gave no evidence that Male teen suicide rates are a statistic of the oppression of homosexuality ? I am actually the only one who went into it in any depth
in my previous post.

thesis proposition(moot)
"a teenage boy that is not a sexual predator becomes predated"


How is that statement moot?

look my country is number 4, how shit is that for a country with legalised gay marriage.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...te-young-males

did you know... ?
that if a freind of your teen has committed suicide then it increases their chance of committing suicide by about 4 or 500 % ... ?
(something like that it may be even higher)

i think teenage sexual development and teenage suicide are intrinsically linked.

What does your country being number 4 have to with homosexuality and suicide?
What does the socially contagious nature of suicide have to do with homosexuality?

There is really no coherency or relevancy in your post. Like I said, it doesn't even attempt to prove anything. The majority of this thread is an argument between you and Oli about things that have nothing to do with subject of teenage suicide and homosexuality. And you haven't even attempted to fill in the massive blanks in your "theory" (or whatever you were trying to prove).

WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?

Why are you spending your time calling people trolls and not spending time actually writing about your intended subject?

Actually, that may well be the truth, in a way. From what I recall, most studies on sexual preference have shown a greater prevalence of exclusive homosexuality amongst men as opposed to women. To use the Kinsey scale, that would be the equivalent of a 5 or 6. The overall prevalence of moderate to exclusive homosexual attraction is roughly the same for both sexes (Kinsey 3-6), but the 5+ range is more likely to be populated with males rather than females. Hi Gia, if we're going to look at sexology we'd have to use more research than the Kinsey scale, since the jury is definitely out on him and his "findings" http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/07/the_man_who_mai.html Interestingly, a study I saw recently suggested that women may be more prone than men to degrees of bisexuality, as if their sexuality is more mutable. However, I must make note that it was only one study's findings, which were not quite compatible with the overall literature on the subject. Could you maybe link me to some of your findings?

IF men are more prone to being strictly homosexual (as appears to be the case) then it is logical to assume that more men would be driven by their sexual preference to commit suicide or other self-harm.
Further, it is my personal belief based on what I have observed that attractions between men have never been as acceptable as those between two women. Pornography displays lesbianism and bisexuality between women very constantly. There isn't a similar level of interest from women to see two men going at it. This "lesbian-for-pay" (for lack of better term) phenomenon can be seen on TV, too, in the form of Girls Gone Wild. The few times I saw Guys Gone Wild commercials (yes, there is a male-oriented one) I noted that I did not see any interaction between the guys.
Of course, the major reason for that would most likely be that there is no major market for guy-on-guy action on a broad level. The pornography industry is set up by men, for men. I couldn't specualte as to what women find sexually attractive nor whether women or men are exclusively homosexual, but Kinsey and the pornographic industry are not good indicators of sexual behaviour.

However, I think the amount of exposure of bisexuality in women in the media (only a little in mainstream media, most of it would be more porno-oriented) and the lack of a male equivalent in the same arena only reinforces the notion that male on male attraction is not acceptable. Again, porn and the media aren't really any indication of this, the porn industry is geared towards one particular type of male viewer. And if we were going to use porn as a benchmark then all women look like a Barbie doll, like being taken up the bum with a huge penis, never orgasm, and like to be shot in the face with semen. The media also portray what they think will sell, not what is true.

Compounding this is the disparity about what same-sex attraction does to one's gender identity. Unless you're a butch, masculine woman (bull dyke!) and have definite masculine traits, female homosexuality does not generally get portrayed as making a woman less of a woman.
Conversely, males attracted to males are often associated with femininity, thus making them lesser men on the masculine social ladder. This is regardless of whether they are masculine acting or not.

First we have to establish if there is a disparity. I think your ideas of lesbians are perhaps simplistic. Again, I feel you're perhaps looking at what lesbians look like in the media or porn. From personal experience lesbians are women who sleep with other women. Terms like "Butch dyke" and "lipstick lesbians" are these stereotypes of lesbians that people think exist. It's extremely hard to tell if a woman is a lesbian unless she volunteers that or you ask her.

There is more pressure on men to conform to what is considered typical masculine behavior. Women have more leeway when it comes to gender boundaries. When they cross those boundaries, the consequences aren't the same.

Based on what? Male heterosexual attacks on gay men? Women don't usually hit other women, and it's less likely for a man to hit a woman. Most violence is committed by men and I wouldn't say there was any more pressure on men to be more masculine as opposed to a women being feminine because of the words"butch dyke" being used. Men hate butch dykes as much as effeminate men.

Those are my personal observations, but I believe they are not unsound.

So, without so many words, I think that there is good evidence that men may tend to more exclusive homosexuality than women and that the psychological trauma of such has more impact than if one was simply bisexual or heterosexual. And I think it's reasonable based on some of the evidence I gave that female homosexuality is better tolerated, and hence not as a big an impact on female suicide.

Sorry if that was a slight diversion from what you were getting at... :o I'm good at diversions.

I'm not convinced. I think it's more likely that men are more likely to use more violent methods and be more "succesful" in suicide attempt. Women take pills and get their stomachs pumped, men in the US is to shoot yourself hanging is the most common in the UK.

Why do men commit suicide more often than women do?

More than four times as many men as women die by suicide; but women attempt suicide more often during their lives than do men, and women report higher rates of depression. Men and women use different suicide methods. Women in all countries are more likely to ingest poisons than men. In countries where the poisons are highly lethal and/or where treatment resources scarce, rescue is rare and hence female suicides outnumber males.http://organizedwisdom.com/helpbar/index.html?return=http://organizedwisdom.com/Ways_People_Commit_Suicide&url=www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=84760#tocc

Thanks for some decent input into this though Gia, I appreciate you taking your time to reply :)

Hi Gia, if we're going to look at sexology we'd have to use more research than the Kinsey scale, since the jury is definitely out on him and his "findings" http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/07/the_man_who_mai.html Could you maybe link me to some of your findings?


WEE! JUDITH REISMAN! She's so cool... :rolleyes:
Okay, she may be right about some things, but I'm always wary of people who pander to the conservative Christian right, especially when it touches on the subject of same-sex attractions.

My point was only to use the Kinsey rating scale, since it has a rather universal presence in the subject of sexual attraction. It is just a scale to rate one's attraction to either gender, no more, no less. As such, it's only bias is that of who is using it. If you rate your self a 6, that means you consider yourself exclusively homosexually oriented. That rating would be a self-description, and realy could not be misused in any conceivable way, by Kinsey, or anyone else.

The pornography industry is set up by men, for men. I couldn't specualte as to what women find sexually attractive nor whether women or men are exclusively homosexual, but Kinsey and the pornographic industry are not good indicators of sexual behaviour.

Well, there doesn't really appear to be an equivalent fascination or lust by women at seeing two guys making out or engaged in sex. It exists, but it doesn't seem to be nearly as pervasive.
Kinsey had little to do with people's self-rating of their own sexuality. I think one of the major criticisms from Reisman etcetera was where exactly they got the data. That is, WHO they interviewed and what section of the population (randomness) they did. The only real way to tally sexual preference is to ask a person what they think. Which is what Kinsey tried to do. If anything, I think homosexuality would be downplayed and underreported, for reasons that would be pretty obvious.
Pornography and the media do, however, give a general sense of the trends and preferences of society. Not entirely accurate, because of both the marketing/profit driven motives as well as reinforcement of popular social stigma and norms, but it still gives us a bigger picture.

Again, porn and the media aren't really any indication of this, the porn industry is geared towards one particular type of male viewer. And if we were going to use porn as a benchmark then all women look like a Barbie doll, like being taken up the bum with a huge penis, never orgasm, and like to be shot in the face with semen. The media also portray what they think will sell, not what is true.

Yes, very true like I mentioned just above. While it doesn't tell us WHAT people are (of course not all women look like Barbie) it DOES tell us a little bit about what they want. Again, not entirely accurate, but not INaccurate, either.



“ Compounding this is the disparity about what same-sex attraction does to one's gender identity. Unless you're a butch, masculine woman (bull dyke!) and have definite masculine traits, female homosexuality does not generally get portrayed as making a woman less of a woman.
Conversely, males attracted to males are often associated with femininity, thus making them lesser men on the masculine social ladder. This is regardless of whether they are masculine acting or not. ”

First we have to establish if there is a disparity. I think your ideas of lesbians are perhaps simplistic. Again, I feel you're perhaps looking at what lesbians look like in the media or porn. From personal experience lesbians are women who sleep with other women. Terms like "Butch dyke" and "lipstick lesbians" are these stereotypes of lesbians that people think exist. It's extremely hard to tell if a woman is a lesbian unless she volunteers that or you ask her.

I think you misunderstood me there. I don't disagree with your general idea. What I was saying, is that unless your visibly butch (which may earn you a label of being manly), female homosexuality doesn't seem to have an impact on your identity with your gender as much as male homosexuality. I think there is more of a tendency to think of male homosexuals as womanly or less than men than there is in female homosexuals.
Like you can still be considered womanly if you like other girls, but if you're a guy who likes guys, you aren't a proper man. In short, to be crude, you want to be a woman. I have heard exactly that kind of statement before from an uninformed person I worked with who had this notion that homosexual men were mostly the equivalent of a woman in a man's body.

I just don't see the same social stereotypes about lesbianism, or at least not to the same degree. Does that make more sense to you?



“ There is more pressure on men to conform to what is considered typical masculine behavior. Women have more leeway when it comes to gender boundaries. When they cross those boundaries, the consequences aren't the same. ”

Based on what? Male heterosexual attacks on gay men? Women don't usually hit other women, and it's less likely for a man to hit a woman. Most violence is committed by men and I wouldn't say there was any more pressure on men to be more masculine as opposed to a women being feminine because of the words"butch dyke" being used. Men hate butch dykes as much as effeminate men.

Based on what? Based on my own observations and experiences as a guy. While that obviously discludes my experience of being a woman, I do have my own observations of others. It is very obvious that women are tolerated in many male-oriented activities or occupations where the reverse wouldn't be true in a man's case. Women can wear a lot of typically male oriented clothing, whereas there are very few female-typical clothes or accoutrements that wouldn't get snickers, stares, and outright derision if a man wore them.

Men ARE more violent than women. I think maybe that adds to the pressures of being homosexual, because of the fear of violence. I do not see the same level of violence against women just because of homosexuality.



I'm not convinced. I think it's more likely that men are more likely to use more violent methods and be more "succesful" in suicide attempt. Women take pills and get their stomachs pumped, men in the US is to shoot yourself hanging is the most common in the UK.

You may be right.
I'm not sure if there isn't also a gender-dependent component in brain structure and how men handle the extreme stress that leads to suicide. Maybe men are more likely to see a situation as hopeless and kill themselves to get out of it?:confused:

http://organizedwisdom.com/helpbar/index.html?return=http://organizedwisdom.com/Ways_People_Commit_Suicide&url=www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=84760#tocc

Thanks for some decent input into this though Gia, I appreciate you taking your time to reply :)


Oui, oui, mademoiselle!

WEE! JUDITH REISMAN! She's so cool... :rolleyes:
Okay, she may be right about some things, but I'm always wary of people who pander to the conservative Christian right, especially when it touches on the subject of same-sex attractions.

Yeah, me too. There seems to be two extremes there. Kinsey and his dubious sex offending research team and Reisman and her puritanical Christian diatribe. I'm looking online for something a bit more trustworthy and objective, but there isn't much on this subject.

My point was only to use the Kinsey rating scale, since it has a rather universal presence in the subject of sexual attraction. It is just a scale to rate one's attraction to either gender, no more, no less. As such, it's only bias is that of who is using it. If you rate your self a 6, that means you consider yourself exclusively homosexually oriented. That rating would be a self-description, and realy could not be misused in any conceivable way, by Kinsey, or anyone else.



Well, there doesn't really appear to be an equivalent fascination or lust by women at seeing two guys making out or engaged in sex. It exists, but it doesn't seem to be nearly as pervasive.While I agree the numbers are not equal to men's, Yaoi is massive
Kinsey had little to do with people's self-rating of their own sexuality. I think one of the major criticisms from Reisman etcetera was where exactly they got the data. That is, WHO they interviewed and what section of the population (randomness) they did. The only real way to tally sexual preference is to ask a person what they think. Which is what Kinsey tried to do. I don't really think it was just Riesmann who debumked Kinsey. On the wiki page it says he is widely refuted. Kinsey didn't take a cross section analysis nor did he objectively test out his theories. The fact two of his researchers were convicted of sexual assault charges seriously invalidates his work, because of the type of work he was doing. If anything, I think homosexuality would be downplayed and underreported, for reasons that would be pretty obvious.
Pornography and the media do, however, give a general sense of the trends and preferences of society. Not entirely accurate, because of both the marketing/profit driven motives as well as reinforcement of popular social stigma and norms, but it still gives us a bigger picture. I'd have to strongly disagree with this and I'd say it's when people take porn and the media as a basis for statistical analysis that becomes an extremely inaccurate way of collecting data. They're heavily biased.



Yes, very true like I mentioned just above. While it doesn't tell us WHAT people are (of course not all women look like Barbie) it DOES tell us a little bit about what they want. Again, not entirely accurate, but not INaccurate, either.

Again, I must say again, porn tells us what a few men like in a fantastical land of women who exist just to please them. In real life partners have a pot belly, hair coming out of their ears, stretchmarks, women bleed once a month, men sometimes don't become erect, love making can be tender and beautiful and giving to one another, porn never ever shows that. It is not, nowhere near, representative of the sex real people have. It's representative of what some men want, and even fewer women.




I think you misunderstood me there. I don't disagree with your general idea. What I was saying, is that unless your visibly butch (which may earn you a label of being manly), female homosexuality doesn't seem to have an impact on your identity with your gender as much as male homosexuality. I think there is more of a tendency to think of male homosexuals as womanly or less than men than there is in female homosexuals.
Like you can still be considered womanly if you like other girls, but if you're a guy who likes guys, you aren't a proper man. In short, to be crude, you want to be a woman. I have heard exactly that kind of statement before from an uninformed person I worked with who had this notion that homosexual men were mostly the equivalent of a woman in a man's body.

I just don't see the same social stereotypes about lesbianism, or at least not to the same degree. Does that make more sense to you?

Yes, I agree. I think that it is rather strange though, if you're right in saying more men are exclusively homosexual. Surely that would make lesbianism abhorant and gay men more accepted since it's more widespread. There's something skew whiff there.





Based on what? Based on my own observations and experiences as a guy. While that obviously discludes my experience of being a woman, I do have my own observations of others. It is very obvious that women are tolerated in many male-oriented activities or occupations where the reverse wouldn't be true in a man's case. Women can wear a lot of typically male oriented clothing, whereas there are very few female-typical clothes or accoutrements that wouldn't get snickers, stares, and outright derision if a man wore them. That's not because women have more freedoms, that's by your own admissions more abhorant for a man to be effeminate. Again, vilifying women. Calling a man a women in an attempt to be insulting is a slight against women, not men.

Men ARE more violent than women. I think maybe that adds to the pressures of being homosexual, because of the fear of violence. I do not see the same level of violence against women just because of homosexuality.

More women are attacked by men. More gay men and women are attacked by men. Most violence against gay men by men is because they see them as women, and THAT'S the problem. Less butch dykes are attacked because they're displaying masculinity, which isn't what is offensive to these homophobes (although in some but not as many cases it is). Does that make sense?

You may be right.
I'm not sure if there isn't also a gender-dependent component in brain structure and how men handle the extreme stress that leads to suicide. Maybe men are more likely to see a situation as hopeless and kill themselves to get out of it?:confused:

Oui, oui, mademoiselle!

That's basically what I quoted from the last post I made. Men are more prone to using violent and "successful" methods of suicide due to depression. I would suggest that the reason men get depressed more than women is a lot more to do with social factors rather than chemical. But that's me being speculative.

High five Gia, this is how two people with opposing views talk about things without being insulting :D I'm really enjoying this, thanks!

i have wondered about this for some years.

while there would still be a sizable difference between those who are persecuted by others just because society teaches children to climb on others to be top of everything, it seems this level of sexual domination is fundermental to most western societies teenage development.

thesis proposition(moot)
"a teenage boy that is not a sexual predator becomes predated"


look my country is number 4, how shit is that for a country with legalised gay marriage.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_you_mal-health-suicide-rate-young-males

did you know... ?
that if a freind of your teen has committed suicide then it increases their chance of committing suicide by about 4 or 500 % ... ?
(something like that it may be even higher)

i think teenage sexual development and teenage suicide are intrinsically linked.


Dude, you posts hurt my eyes..
Why do you insist in using colors in this way ?

Dude, you posts hurt my eyes..
Why do you insist in using colors in this way ?

You got a good point...i feel like im having a sezure...(spell check LOL)

Yeah, me too. There seems to be two extremes there. Kinsey and his dubious sex offending research team and Reisman and her puritanical Christian diatribe. I'm looking online for something a bit more trustworthy and objective, but there isn't much on this subject.
I think she's Jewish, actually! :o

While I agree the numbers are not equal to men's, Yaoi is massive
I don't know how massive it is. Maybe in another country?
I don't really think it was just Riesmann who debumked Kinsey. On the wiki page it says he is widely refuted. Kinsey didn't take a cross section analysis nor did he objectively test out his theories.

His predecessor Paul Gebhardt did try weeding out what would have been considered statistical bias in the population data. The result was not all that different from the original data.
Other studies have shown similar results.
I think you asked for a link to some study(s). The one in particular about women being more prone to bisexuality (not exclusive homosexuality) may be difficult to locate... I'll see if I can round up some links.


I just don't see the same social stereotypes about lesbianism, or at least not to the same degree. Does that make more sense to you?

Yes, I agree. I think that it is rather strange though, if you're right in saying more men are exclusively homosexual. Surely that would make lesbianism abhorant and gay men more accepted since it's more widespread. There's something skew whiff there.

It's been pretty consistent since Kinsey. Take people who range from mildly bisexual to full-blown homosexual, and you get roughly the same numbers. I don't know why that is that men are more prone to exclusive homosexuality.

You WOULD tend to think it should be the opposite, but that's just not the case. I think it's numerous things. People just tolerate woman on woman love more. I think part of it is because the macho heterosexual male culture not only find it attractive (because it's two women, not two men) but those same types also tend to be the most violent against homosexual men. They're only going to accept what they find attractive, hypocrisy be damned. And again, I think the reasons I outlined earlier would apply: man + man = girly. Woman + woman = girly. The double standard makes guys who do it effeminate, and also for the women, for the most part (again, making exception for the really butch...). For men, the very act is effeminate, whereas with women, only the appearance and demeanor makes one manly.

Am I wrong in that observation?




“ Based on what? Based on my own observations and experiences as a guy. While that obviously discludes my experience of being a woman, I do have my own observations of others. It is very obvious that women are tolerated in many male-oriented activities or occupations where the reverse wouldn't be true in a man's case. Women can wear a lot of typically male oriented clothing, whereas there are very few female-typical clothes or accoutrements that wouldn't get snickers, stares, and outright derision if a man wore them. ”

That's not because women have more freedoms, that's by your own admissions more abhorant for a man to be effeminate. Again, vilifying women. Calling a man a women in an attempt to be insulting is a slight against women, not men.
While I find really effeminate guys kind of annoying, I don't necessarily find it abhorrent. I certainly don't regard homosexuality as excluding one from being a "real" man, whatever that means. This is the way society (masculine society) in general views it.


More women are attacked by men. More gay men and women are attacked by men. Most violence against gay men by men is because they see them as women, and THAT'S the problem. Less butch dykes are attacked because they're displaying masculinity, which isn't what is offensive to these homophobes (although in some but not as many cases it is). Does that make sense?

True homophobic people, who are driven by a powerful dogma or ideology are probably not going to simply attack someone because of seeing men being feminine or vice versa, it is true. However, that may make them more likely to assault someone. I think that's what you were getting at.
In the case of the rest, it is simply a double-standard that men can't do something that women can.



That's basically what I quoted from the last post I made. Men are more prone to using violent and "successful" methods of suicide due to depression. I would suggest that the reason men get depressed more than women is a lot more to do with social factors rather than chemical. But that's me being speculative.
Makes sense. Though I wouldn't necessarily throw out neurochemistry either.

High five Gia, this is how two people with opposing views talk about things without being insulting :D I'm really enjoying this, thanks!
I rarely find it beneficial to choke people during what should be constructive conversation. I enjoy being courteous, unless the other person is way out of line.

On the other hand, I'm not totally sure how opposite our views really are!!! :shrug:

I don't know why that is that men are more prone to exclusive homosexuality.

Same reason you see very few women who have sex with women and men who are married/in romantic relationships with other women. Sex with men is polarizing. It's more acceptable for a woman to have sex with other women, but it's not acceptable to romantically love a woman as a woman, and it is absolutely unacceptable to romantically love a man that loves sex with men and women, or to be a man that romantically loves a man who enjoys sex with men and women.

Same reason you see very few women who have sex with women and men who are married/in romantic relationships with other women. Sex with men is polarizing. It's more acceptable for a woman to have sex with other women, but it's not acceptable to romantically love a woman as a woman, and it is absolutely unacceptable to romantically love a man that loves sex with men and women, or to be a man that romantically loves a man who enjoys sex with men and women.

:eek:

I'll take my time trying to untangle that... :runaway:

Okay. Unless I am being blunt/brusque, no one understands me. :p

I think a lot of "bisexual" men are forced to identify as gay because women in our society don't want to sleep with a man who's slept with a man.

I am almost positive a good portion of people will have sex with a person of the opposite or same sex given the right circumstance. If I'm forced to live on an all woman island the rest of my life, I'm not going without sex.

Some people are 100% straight or gay, but I don't think there are really a whole lot of those people.

I think she's Jewish, actually!

Oh dear, I'm a big silly. The name would be a big flashing neon sign eh? :o


I don't know how massive it is. Maybe in another country?

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,210,000 for Yaoi. (0.33 seconds)

His predecessor Paul Gebhardt did try weeding out what would have been considered statistical bias in the population data. The result was not all that different from the original data.
Other studies have shown similar results.
I think you asked for a link to some study(s). The one in particular about women being more prone to bisexuality (not exclusive homosexuality) may be difficult to locate... I'll see if I can round up some links.

I'd have to see these elusive test results.


It's been pretty consistent since Kinsey. Take people who range from mildly bisexual to full-blown homosexual, and you get roughly the same numbers. I don't know why that is that men are more prone to exclusive homosexuality.

I think you're either bisexual, hererosexual or homosexual. Is there a sliding scale?

You WOULD tend to think it should be the opposite, but that's just not the case. I think it's numerous things. People just tolerate woman on woman love more. I think part of it is because the macho heterosexual male culture not only find it attractive (because it's two women, not two men) but those same types also tend to be the most violent against homosexual men. They're only going to accept what they find attractive, hypocrisy be damned. And again, I think the reasons I outlined earlier would apply: man + man = girly. Woman + woman = girly. The double standard makes guys who do it effeminate, and also for the women, for the most part (again, making exception for the really butch...). For men, the very act is effeminate, whereas with women, only the appearance and demeanor makes one manly.

Am I wrong in that observation?

Well, personally I don't see what is effeminate about gay sex. It involves an extra penis for a start.

While I find really effeminate guys kind of annoying, I don't necessarily find it abhorrent. I certainly don't regard homosexuality as excluding one from being a "real" man, whatever that means. This is the way society (masculine society) in general views it.

True homophobic people, who are driven by a powerful dogma or ideology are probably not going to simply attack someone because of seeing men being feminine or vice versa, it is true. However, that may make them more likely to assault someone. I think that's what you were getting at.
In the case of the rest, it is simply a double-standard that men can't do something that women can.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last line. Can you just clarify for me what the double standard is please? I think you're saying it's everyone's right to be homophobic but I'm not sure.



Makes sense. Though I wouldn't necessarily throw out neurochemistry either.

No, I'm neither refuting genetic disposition to homophobia or societal influences. I'm just more inclined to think it's societal because I lack knowledge about one more than the other. That's perhaps my own short sightedness there.


I rarely find it beneficial to choke people during what should be constructive conversation. I enjoy being courteous, unless the other person is way out of line.

On the other hand, I'm not totally sure how opposite our views really are!!! :shrug:

So, now I suppose if we want to further this we should go dig up lots of comparative studies :D Thanks.

p.s. ok, here's a Cambridge University study on Homosexuality. I'll have a read of it and tell you what I found. http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/introduction.html

Some more research notes:

http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayscience.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=k...esult&resnum=1

http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library..._sexuality.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m7248r71tx28x8n9/

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...CvvpSf74O8bwBg

I think this one will be good: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581741

LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.

and here's why:Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual people of mental disorders and suicidal behaviour.[1,2] LGB people are subject to institutionalised prejudice, social stress, social exclusion (even within families) and anti-homosexual hatred and violence and often internalise a sense of shame about their sexuality.[1,2] Lifestyle factors such as alcohol and drugs misuse also increase the risk of morbidity[1] as well as suicide attempts.[3] Deliberate self harm (DSH) is intentional self poisoning or injury, irrespective of the apparent purpose of the act.

Results 1 - 10 of about 8,210,000 for Yaoi. (0.33 seconds)

Maybe it's bigger than I thought? I'd come across it before, but I don't know very many women into anime or manga (actually, in my life, I only knew one girl who you could consider to be a true fan of anime). There might be a large male following too.

I'd have to see these elusive test results.

As far as Kinsey's colleague, Dr. Paul Gebhard is concerned, the relevant re-analyses are as follows:

In The Kinsey Data, Gebhard and Johnson (1979) reexamined the amount of homosexual experience in Kinsey's basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females. They found 9.9% of the males in the College Sample had extensive homosexual experience. 3.7% of females had extensive homosexual experience.

Tabulations by Gebhard (McWhirter 1990) on Kinsey's basic sample of noninstitutionalized males and females indicated that "13.95% of males and 4.25% of females, or a combined average of 9.13%" had had either "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experience. These figures were not weighted by marital status.
that is from this page here (http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/bib-homoprev.html)

I think you're either bisexual, hererosexual or homosexual. Is there a sliding scale?
Yes, I am all of the above!
Seriously though, the Kinsey scale which is really the first attempt at such a thing looks like this
http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/images/ak-hhscale2_clip_image001.jpg

It is rated like this
0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual

1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual

2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual

3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual

4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual

5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual

6- Exclusively homosexual


Well, personally I don't see what is effeminate about gay sex. It involves an extra penis for a start.
Your feelings aside, the history of homoerotic attraction and sexuality has not been exactly kind, as far as male identity is concerned. In classical days (Greece, for starters) one male had to assume the dominant, masculine role. The other was the submissive, feminine role. I don't think this was exactly universal, but generally it was so.
In this modern age, from what I've observed, even among people who don't really have a problem with homosexuality itself, they often tend to demean a man who exhibits homosexual tendencies, usually by insinuating that he is womanly or effeminate or weak for being attracted to other men. It is as if to say "real" men are only attracted to women, and if you are also attracted to men, or are exclusively homosexual, you lose your status as being an authentic male.
If you would like to descend into a certain madness, the multiple threads started by Buddha1 on the subject of homosexuality and masculinity are readily available for viewing. I don't have any links at the moment, but they exist here on the forums.

True homophobic people, who are driven by a powerful dogma or ideology are probably not going to simply attack someone because of seeing men being feminine or vice versa, it is true. However, that may make them more likely to assault someone. I think that's what you were getting at.
In the case of the rest, it is simply a double-standard that men can't do something that women can.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last line. Can you just clarify for me what the double standard is please? I think you're saying it's everyone's right to be homophobic but I'm not sure.
I think maybe I was misunderstanding what you were getting at myself!
I'm not saying anything about a person's right to be homophobic, though I believe very much in right to freedom of thought and speech.
I guess you'll have to go back and review what I said about the double-standard is in acceptance of female homosexuality as opposed to male homosexuality.

No, I'm neither refuting genetic disposition to homophobia or societal influences. I'm just more inclined to think it's societal because I lack knowledge about one more than the other. That's perhaps my own short sightedness there.
Did you mean homophobia, or homosexuality? Or either?

Not to completely ignore your post Gia, but would you say that although not conclusive, the studies have shown, through testing genetic disposition, that suicide among homosexual males is sociological? Therefore the studies and have shown the OP's original question, "Male teen suicide rates a statistic of the oppression of homosexuality?" to be true. Due to sociological factors.

I decided to split my response just because of the amount I would have to go through in one post.


So, now I suppose if we want to further this we should go dig up lots of comparative studies :D Thanks.

p.s. ok, here's a Cambridge University study on Homosexuality. I'll have a read of it and tell you what I found. http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/introduction.html



You earlier said this
Yes, I agree. I think that it is rather strange though, if you're right in saying more men are exclusively homosexual. Surely that would make lesbianism abhorant and gay men more accepted since it's more widespread. There's something skew whiff there.

From the link you posted above http://www.tim-taylor.com/papers/twin_studies/introduction.html
In estimations of prevalence, as in most other areas of study related to homosexuality, we find the peculiar fact that very little has been mentioned of female homosexuality. It is generally agreed that the prevalence of lesbianism is somewhat lower than that of male homosexuality (e.g. Reinisch, 1991).

It seems even the scientific preoccupation with male homosexuality outweighs that of female homosexuality.

Instances of at least one same-sex experience to orgasm:
37% of males
13% of females, (p. 650, Male, p. 475, Female)

Males:
10% of males in the sample were predominantly homosexual between the ages of 16 and 55
8% of males were exlusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55. (p. 651, Male)
4% of white males had been exclusively homosexual after the onset of adolescence up to the time of their interviews, (p. 651, Male).

Females:
2 to 6% of females, aged 20-35, were more or less exclusively homosexual in experience/response, (p. 488, Female)
1 to 3% of unmarried females aged 20-35 were exclusively homosexual in experience/response, (Table 142, p. 499, and p. 474, Female).

As far as the study I referred to earlier about bisexuality in females being more prevalent, well, I don't remember where I saw it exactly. I think it may have been related to the researcher known as Bailey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey
I remember the particular study eluding to the fact that women overall were more bisexual in nature than men; meaning that more women had strong attractions to other women, though not exclusive ones.

Thus far, this is the only link that is pertinent, and it only deals with male bisexuality: http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27063.html

No, wait, I found this (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05sex.html?_r=1)

Not to completely ignore your post Gia, but would you say that although not conclusive, the studies have shown, through testing genetic disposition, that suicide among homosexual males is sociological? Therefore the studies and have shown the OP's original question, "Male teen suicide rates a statistic of the oppression of homosexuality?" to be true. Due to sociological factors.

Well, the above posts were more complicated, but to bring it back to the original topic, I can't say that it isn't. But I wouldn't know.

But you're having a tendency to confuse me also!

You say through testing genetic disposition, that suicide among homosexual males is sociological?

Are you referring only to homosexual males?

I was busy replying to a previous post when you posted this. I'll try to answer appropriately.

I think this one will be good: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581741
“ LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people. ”

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people appear to be at greater risk than heterosexual people of mental disorders and suicidal behaviour.[1,2] LGB people are subject to institutionalised prejudice, social stress, social exclusion (even within families) and anti-homosexual hatred and violence and often internalise a sense of shame about their sexuality.[1,2] Lifestyle factors such as alcohol and drugs misuse also increase the risk of morbidity[1] as well as suicide attempts.[3] Deliberate self harm (DSH) is intentional self poisoning or injury, irrespective of the apparent purpose of the act


Abstract

Background: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people may be at higher risk of mental disorders than heterosexual people.

Method: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicide, suicidal ideation and deliberate self harm in LGB people. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library Database, the Web of Knowledge, the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, the Campbell Collaboration and grey literature databases for articles published January 1966 to April 2005. We also used Google and Google Scholar and contacted authors where necessary. We searched all terms related to homosexual, lesbian and bisexual people and all terms related to mental disorders, suicide, and deliberate self harm. We included papers on population based studies which contained concurrent heterosexual comparison groups and valid definition of sexual orientation and mental health outcomes.

Results: Of 13706 papers identified, 476 were initially selected and 28 (25 studies) met inclusion criteria. Only one study met all our four quality criteria and seven met three of these criteria. Data was extracted on 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non heterosexual people. Meta-analyses revealed a two fold excess in suicide attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual people [pooled risk ratio for lifetime risk 2.47 (CI 1.87, 3.28)]. The risk for depression and anxiety disorders (over a period of 12 months or a lifetime) on meta-analyses were at least 1.5 times higher in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (RR range 1.54–2.58) and alcohol and other substance dependence over 12 months was also 1.5 times higher (RR range 1.51–4.00). Results were similar in both sexes but meta analyses revealed that lesbian and bisexual women were particularly at risk of substance dependence (alcohol 12 months: RR 4.00, CI 2.85, 5.61; drug dependence: RR 3.50, CI 1.87, 6.53; any substance use disorder RR 3.42, CI 1.97–5.92), while lifetime prevalence of suicide attempt was especially high in gay and bisexual men (RR 4.28, CI 2.32, 7.88).

Conclusion: LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.


Unlike the person who started this thread, at least we can comment on the actual subject!

I would definitely think that homosexuality leads to increased risk of suicide. For all the reasons listed above.

I think this one will be good: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581741
I would definitely think that homosexuality leads to increased risk of suicide. For all the reasons listed above.

I disagree. According to WHO figures, suicide is down and homosexuality is up. There's less chance of homosexuals committing suicide as societal factors in homosexual suicide rates decline. There's a very high risk of being Russian and committing suicide though. the biggest factor in suicide is substance abuse.

I disagree. According to WHO figures, suicide is down and homosexuality is up. There's less chance of homosexuals committing suicide as societal factors in homosexual suicide rates decline. There's a very high risk of being Russian and committing suicide though. the biggest factor in suicide is substance abuse.

do you think it is scientifically "safe" to mix cultures in this situation without defining a sociodemographic simile ?

i.e russia and alcoholism and accidental suicide by alcahol poisoning and or freezing to death etc...

hmmmm usa... bible belt homosexual acceptance/pedophilia
statistically collaborative with sanfransisco ?

can you define the bible belt and san fran as being statistically equal in the actual people you are testing ?

fascinating comments ab out the teen pregnancy rate.
can we use that as a comparable to all teens or must we divide it by religion and type of education system ?
(could obahma have been president without being a christian? [NO! not at all in my personal opinion but that does not change the filter questions on "can all people have equal chance to become president]).

problem manly is the level of assumed simile of cultures and societies.
iran for example refuse to accept they have any homosexuals at all which is a little hilarious.
people are no different from that in lying to peoples faces and living a lie in general.

do you think it is scientifically "safe" to mix cultures in this situation without defining a sociodemographic simile ?

Define "safe"

i.e russia and alcoholism and accidental suicide by alcahol poisoning and or freezing to death etc...

The studies show suicide is not accidental, suicide is an intention ending to one own's life. if you die by poisoning yourself without the intention to kill youself that's not suicide, that's accidental death.

hmmmm usa... bible belt homosexual acceptance/pedophilia
statistically collaborative with sanfransisco ?

Link please

can you define the bible belt and san fran as being statistically equal in the actual people you are testing ?

Statistically equal in what respect?

fascinating comments ab out the teen pregnancy rate.
can we use that as a comparable to all teens or must we divide it by religion and type of education system ?

That depends on what the aims and objectives of the study want to find out. If you want to find the comparative data on teen pregnancies in a religious context you have to study teens from a religious demography. if you want to study the worldwide levels of teen pregnancy you have to get a cross section of worldwide subjects.

(could obahma have been president without being a christian? [NO! not at all in my personal opinion but that does not change the filter questions on "can all people have equal chance to become president]).

I don't know the answer to that. you would have to go about finding the religious beliefs of those who voted for Obama and compare them to the votes for other candidates with the same religious beliefs, then compare those with the votes from non religious voters. There are no studies I can find with this data.

problem manly is the level of assumed simile of cultures and societies.
iran for example refuse to accept they have any homosexuals at all which is a little hilarious.
people are no different from that in lying to peoples faces and living a lie in general.

Did you know in Iran they enforce transexual operations on homosexuals to keep the figures down?

Define "safe"

<> accurate

The studies show suicide is not accidental, suicide is an intention ending to one own's life. if you die by poisoning yourself without the intention to kill yourself that's not suicide, that's accidental death.

<> based on notes found ?

Link please

<> you link all your opinions to prove someone else thought of what your saying first and your merely repeating someone elses opinion and then i will.


Statistically equal in what respect?

<> all statistics are relative thus equality is simple relativity


That depends on what the aims and objectives of the study want to find out. If you want to find the comparative data on teen pregnancies in a religious context you have to study teens from a religious demography. if you want to study the worldwide levels of teen pregnancy you have to get a cross section of worldwide subjects.

<> are the majority of people in the US religious ?

I don't know the answer to that. you would have to go about finding the religious beliefs of those who voted for Obama and compare them to the votes for other candidates with the same religious beliefs, then compare those with the votes from non religious voters. There are no studies I can find with this data.

<> the majority of the american population are christian and or believe in god and define them selves as christian for want of no other option.

Did you know in Iran they enforce transsexual operations on homosexuals to keep the figures down?

<> there is nothing such as a transsexual operation.
if you mean they castrate them then i suggest that is what you type.
do these castrated men then go and have anal sex with other men ?
or
are you just repeating a rumour ?

<> there is nothing such as a transsexual operation.
if you mean they castrate them then i suggest that is what you type.
do these castrated men then go and have anal sex with other men ?
or
are you just repeating a rumour ?

ITTYF there are.
The correct terms are 'feminizing genitoplasty' or 'masculinizing genitoplasty'. Other procedures with the same intent include Hormone Replacement Therapy or reconstruction of the chest and face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_surgery

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_reassignment_therapy
I
f you believe that these operations are 'just castrations'. Then you are sadly mistaken.

http://www.coffeecoffeeandmorecoffee.com/archives/filmstills/maternatura.jpg

http://www.genderenigma.com/genderenigma_logo_1.jpg

They make some outstanding pussies, for what it's worth. They wittle it down to a nice little clit, and the only difference in the vag is that unlike mine, it doesn't self-lubricate.

And, yes, transwomen come just like biowomen.

As for transmen, it's a little different, but I've never seen a post-op transman in the nude.

How about Thomas Beatie, the world's first pregnant man:

http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/theremoteisland/2009/01/Pregnant%20Man.jpg

Fascinating until you realise that, strictly speaking, he's not actually a man. She's a pretty convincing bloke though...

And I think the silence of riple says it all ;) Too much information?

Yes, although I do not understand why a transman would want to experience pregnancy. I don't consider him a man at all, although for reasons completely aside from his biological sex.

Wtf....so when girls suicide it proves the oppression of lesbians?

I'm stoned again. I swear.

edit* as for Thomas Beatie...I don't get him. First he wants to become a guy..yet still wants to get pregnant. I know of no real men who can get pregnant. I guess a failed attempt at being trans. People who can't live with the consequences of their decisions. If I choose to be a dude, and went through all the surgeries and hormonal blah blah blah, then I sure as Hell don't want to get reminded that I was once female by.....becoming the first fake trans aka giving birth.

Wtf....so when girls suicide it proves the oppression of lesbians?

I'm stoned again. I swear.

edit* as for Thomas Beatie...I don't get him. First he wants to become a guy..yet still wants to get pregnant. I know of no real men who can get pregnant. I guess a failed attempt at being trans. People who can't live with the consequences of their decisions. If I choose to be a dude, and went through all the surgeries and hormonal blah blah blah, then I sure as Hell don't want to get reminded that I was once female by.....becoming the first fake trans aka giving birth.

Thomas Beatie is just a narcissist who knew how much attention this would get him. If he gave a damn for his children (he's having another) and could compare his growing up with gender confusion to what he's inflicting on his children, he wouldn't do this. He's a poor excuse for a father, IMO. I have no issues with transpeople being parents, but this is intentionally inflicting gender issues on little children. WRONG.

Thomas Beatie is just a narcissist who knew how much attention this would get him. If he gave a damn for his children (he's having another) and could compare his growing up with gender confusion to what he's inflicting on his children, he wouldn't do this. He's a poor excuse for a father, IMO. I have no issues with transpeople being parents, but this is intentionally inflicting gender issues on little children. WRONG.

People are selfish. Very. Especially when it comes to procreating.

Actually, that may well be the truth, in a way.

Giambattista, my hat is off to you.
Fantastic post, very well formulated with the basic content of cause and effect that all previous posters seem to have been unable to collate or perceive without the colour by numbers and join the dots already done for them.
i have long been aware of this aspect of male sexual development and wondered how much damage it did on society.
what i think we run up against which is going to be a HUGE difficulty is trying to formulate truth post suicide from parents who have everything to lose and nothing to gain by realising their son was in fact potentially homosexual and subjugated and isolated to a point of suicide by their very own family.

this basic design of oppression of siblings/children/family members is why i am a strong supporter of individual medical privacy for children when it comes to sexual health and sexual well being so children/teens can seek and maintain help without the family trying to dominate and abuse them by forcing their prejudices upon them.

as you can see from this thread;
you can shine a light but you cant teach people how to walk(think) and this subject needs people like yourself to be able to freely grasp the required concepts without simply adding more abuse to existing victims and only increasing further damage and loss of life.

the real impact of this on society is indeed large and extensive however male homosexuality is still very much oppressed through social conditioning.
I am quite impressed you found your way to the basic emasculation of men when defined as homosexual.

isnt it funny how bisexuality in a women is deemed as a strength, yet in men it is deemed as insidious.

codanblad
you are asking questions of the "what if" variety.
Obviously there are different aspects, varieties and outcomes however what i am primarily concerned with is the major impact zone.
1. death
2. violence (self harm and assault and torture and rape)
3. disassociation and disconnection with society
4. the loss of a different type of brain that can contribute new and different types of thinking to a world in need of new and different types of thought processes to deal with ever newer problems.

i could wail on about the damage women are doing to their daughters as they feed them the Disney dream and how that leads to broken marriages and psychological child abuse... but that is not the topic.
(we need to stay on topic quite stringently on this issue as many will seek to derail it as you can see from the dominant number of posts thus far)

Thomas Beatie is just a narcissist who knew how much attention this would get him. If he gave a damn for his children (he's having another) and could compare his growing up with gender confusion to what he's inflicting on his children, he wouldn't do this. He's a poor excuse for a father, IMO. I have no issues with transpeople being parents, but this is intentionally inflicting gender issues on little children. WRONG.

that is the women who wants to be called man but seems to have missed the biology lessons in high school.
maybe a geneticist should put her right.

a man cant become pregnant.
only a women or a hermaphrodite can.

this women is indeed completely off the rails in my opinion.
thrashing children with their own twisted ego.

problem is children have no rights.

what happened to the hysterectomy ?
men cant become pregnant so she obviousely does not want to become a man even if it were possible which it is not.
she will never have a penis or testicles.
just bits of skin made to look vaguely similar from a distance.
it is all about perception rather than reality.

i can understand the concept of men wanting to have their genitals removed but they will never be a women and neither will a women be a man.
medical science is decades off making that a reality.

i respect their right to choose to have it done just like people choose to have other elective plastic surgery.
but... inflicting their issues upon children is in my opinion stepping over the line.

what is going to happen when the child realises that 2 men cant have a baby ?