60 minutes last night?

[smokey]

Did anyone see 60 minutes last night? The final story was on studies of how people become gay. It was very interesting. It featured 2 sets of identical twins raised together, one straight the other gay...one set were adults but the other were 8 or so and the contrast was most striking, the gay one was very girly, and the straight one a typical hetro boy. Then they discussed modes of speech and physical mannerisms highlighting their "gay" traits. It goes along way to explaining "gaydar" (which by the way I do not believe in). It was suggested that one of the components that makes a soul gay are the harmones a fetus is exposed to in the womb. All of this is most interesting. Personally I believe that gayness in a biological mechanism for lowering the population (at least it is in animals) and that the higher the population density, the higher the number of gays (again observable in animals, most notably herd or flock animals, note the gay penguins at the san diego zoo). What I am interested in though is how is it that there are those of us who are neither straight or gay but bisexual. Did we just fall through the cracks as it were or is there something more complex happening? Thoughts!

[ddbmma]

I do not watch television, but this is an interesting subject. There was a similar article in _Scientific American_ or the likes within the past two or three years. Science has generally concluded biology can influence a person's sexual orientation. The skinny, people can be born gay or straight.

I think we bisexuals are the cosmic joke. Or maybe we are the next advancement of the human being. We can have sex with and love either gender without any real preferences. Then again I am not one knows it all. Just plopped in my :2cents: .

[Driver 8]

I didn't see the show, but the big bisexual activism list is pretty angry about it. They're saying they brought on Bailey, that discredited researcher who trashes bis, and treated his views seriously without mentioning all the problems with his history and methodology - any comments from people who did see it?

[Michael623]

I saw most of it and I am naive about who the researchers were. It seems to me that some interesting analysis was presented. However, it seems odd that only 2 sets of twins were used and of course twins where one was gay and one wasn't. The video they showed in their 'gaydar" approach to identifying homosexuals also seemed to be a 'setup". 60 Minutes has a history of manipulating what they air to the public, which should also be considered. It is upsetting to me that they would present this story line based on such limited data and from what Driver 8 says, suspect researchers.

[smokey]

I don't know anything about the researchers and I do know all shows manulipate what they show, so that doesn't bother me so much, it is a given and can't be avoided though I have to agree the young twins were pretty extreme...I didn't post to trash 60 minutes or any researcher, I am just curious about what everybody thinks.

[meteast chick]

This is certainly very interesting,

But I was too busy crying my eyes out at "The L Word".

This whole nurture v nature crap is just that: crap.
I believe a person is born that way, I do not believe in "gaydar", only
that some people act more "gay" than others (that is, for a man to
act more feminine or a woman to act too manly, that seems to be the
popular opinion for what is considered acting gay)
I'm sure all these scientists can battle it out til the sun comes up.
Actually, I'd like them to go on Survivor and see who gets voted off first.
I think the Bi's would last longest...

luv and kisses,
xoxoxo
meteast

[inthewoods]

If no body wants to bash 60 minutes I will, they suck, they are nothing but a bunch of Hitler loving assholes. Now that I have that out of the way.
If you want real research do not whach these yahoo's on tv. The net is full of good research and if you want research on bisexual then search the web. Type in Genetics/Bisexual and you will find more research papers than you can read in a day. Some is clearly junk science but a lot of it is real research.
From the papers I have read we are programed in the womb period. All researchers, scientist and doctors know this and they all know that people that are GLBT are born this way.
The best thing that the GLBT communtiy can do to make life better for us is to send some of this research to our elected officials to show them that we are not just a bunch of pervs. I do see a trend taking place and I believe the future GLBT issues will be very small and only recognized as a bad thing by those evil groups like the kkk and those skin head nazi assholes.

meteast chick, I do not have show time any more so I have not been able to watch The L Word. If you have time what happened that was so sad or good that you cried your eyes out. Everyone have a wonderful day, inthewoods

[smokey]

hitler loving assholes? hardly! but this is not the place for that type of discussion so lets just end that train of thought right here and right now.

[inthewoods]

To the forum,

I am very sorry for some of the comments I made in this thread. I tend to get a little excited when it comes to people that set out to decieve for the sake of money. I am sorry and I do feel like an ass. Thanks inthewoods

[Michael623]

Why aren't the researchers, who presented the story and the data used relevant to what I thought of the story.

[smokey]

personally I saw no attempts to decieve and while I don't know the research (or researchers) very well, it seemed above board. The fact that they didn't mention bisexuals doesn't surprise me, we tend to fly under the radar as it is. Actually while the show was a bit simplistic (you cannot put all the complexities of sexuality into a 20 minute segment) I thought it did an excellent job of presenting an alternative to the rabid funnymentalist gayness as a sin doctrine which in this society is sorely needed.

[arana]

For anyone that didn't see it and would like to so you can make your own opinions go to view the segment here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml


I do know all shows manulipate what they show, so that doesn't bother me so much I think everyone should be bothered by this. Manipulated news to make people think a certain way when it's not true or bias is wrong. Facts should be presented in their honest form, good or bad, then the public can make their own opinions based on the truth, not someone elses view of the truth.

[smokey]

what I mean is that every show has its bias, indeed every person has their bias and unless you want to spend several hours, days, weeks, months, years presenting all sides of an arguement, then you have to select what you do, show or present. I am all for honesty, I just don't have high expectations for the media, any media, ours or anybody elses and the very fact that they are presenting anything on the issue of sexuality outside the mainstream is an improvement. I don't expect anything from the media except an overview, and I expect it to be bias....it is up to me to educate me.

[Driver 8]

personally I saw no attempts to decieve and while I don't know the research (or researchers) very well, it seemed above board.
If you knew the researchers, you might feel different ...

I looked at the web version of the show, and it was uncritically citing Michael Bailey. Bailey got a lot of attention last year for his "research" proving there are no bisexual men. (There are other threads on the forum about what's so poorly done about his research, so I won't restate them here.)

[DGoncz]

There was an interesting article cited in Medscape on bisexuality and porn. Males who responded to porn responded to male and female porn differently. That is, gay and lesbian porn. Females who responded to porn responded equally to gay or lesbian porn.

The article was referenced (never cited) in media as proof that no bisexual males exist. What a hoot! I don't even think the researchers showed bisexual porn or even straight porn with a het couple.

Can anyone say more about this study? I may have gotten something wrong.

[smokey]

There was an interesting article cited in Medscape on bisexuality and porn. Males who responded to porn responded to male and female porn differently. That is, gay and lesbian porn. Females who responded to porn responded equally to gay or lesbian porn.

The article was referenced (never cited) in media as proof that no bisexual males exist. What a hoot! I don't even think the researchers showed bisexual porn or even straight porn with a het couple.

Can anyone say more about this study? I may have gotten something wrong.

Thats interesting and not surprising....it highlights the fact that the nature of human sexuality and sexual response is far more complex than one model to embrace.

[DGoncz]

That was it! The Bailey study!