To think you cant "make DS gay"

[TwittleBee]

I am still really pissed off from a conversation with DH this morning…

It all started because we were talking about things our parents done for us as kids, e.g. my mum put on a pamper evening and dad used to take us to Blockbusters once a month

Anyway DH then said he couldn’t wait for boys evening with DS (okay fair enough that is lovely, some quality DH and Ds time) but when I then said ooo yeah and we could have pamper evenings too (nothing wring with relaxing and taking care of yourself right?) DH then flipped and said I was determined to make our DS gay?!

Calmly I stated that you cant make someone gay and pointed out that nothing my parents done made me bi!

Anyway, I am sure you can imagine how the rest of the conversation went… not well… DH said I am introducing him to that world and pushing him in that direction already by letting him play with my make up whilst I get ready!

Anyway, DH is BU right? And even if DS did turn out gay then why should it even matter to DH! I am honestly feeling very shocked by DH reaction.

I'm intrigued about the Freud comment as well. In what way is it Freudian?

@CantStopMeNow that's not a reasonable interpretation of "not 100% genetic". Just because something might not be 100% genetic doesn't mean that it could be altered or "cured".

I have a very big, hairy 26 year old who loves his bath bombs and face packs, always has.
He's very much straight.

Sorry, just rereading my comment and it sounds like I was eye rolling at @CantStopMeNow's post - I meant I was eye rolling at the post you quoted, sorry as there was so much wrong with it, and where to start lol

I don't think homosexuality is 100% genetic either.

I understand why the argument that homosexuality is 'natural' and 'innate' was so central to twentieth-century gay rights movements. It happened at a time when people were getting hugely interested in deriving morality/ethics from biology. But I don't think it's the only way to justify homosexuality. I've never liked the idea that it's ok to say to some people (but only some) 'ok, everyone else can choose the sexual partner they like, but you can only do that if you can convince us you can't help it. We'll only agree not to be repulsed if the choice is out of your hands'.

(That said, I don't remotely believe Freud was onto anything, so differ from stairway on that one.)

I agree with Freud in that sexuality is probably formed in early childhood . Certain genes are switched on. I don’t believe it can be changed once the genes are switched on.

And how is it formed in early childhood?

I can tell you it's not a choice, that's for damn sure.

The same way that other aspects of a person are formed, by complex interactions between their environment, their brain and their genetic potential. I agree that it isn't a choice.

I’m not saying it a choice, as I said no one really knows how sexuality is formed. It is unlikely to be 100 percent genetic. There are some theories it’s formed in the womb. My opinion is that it’s formed in early childhood but what triggers it we don’t know.

I suspect it's different for different people. If there were a single, simple genetic cause, we'd surely know by now, so it seems likely there are various different genetic prompts. Some people probably are innately gay, 'born that way'. But I suspect others are not. I've certainly read accounts by women who very convincingly argue that their sexuality actually shifted during adulthood, after the birth of a child. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to imagine that the hormonal changes you go through might have an effect.

There's nothing particularly wrong with suggesting homosexuality might not be purely genetic.

I agree with Freud in that sexuality is probably formed in early childhood

and

The same way that other aspects of a person are formed, by complex interactions between their environment, their brain and their genetic potential

The thing with this way of thinking though,is that it sounds like you're essentially agreeing with the OP's DH way of thinking - by saying that environment and upbringing can "play a part in being gay" too, does he have a point if he's saying "don't be bloody painting my lad's nails/pampering?"

I don't follow your logic lime?

Surely he only has a point if you think being gay is bad. He sounds as if he does. That makes him a giant wanker.

Er no, not at all.

So what if you “made him” gay. We are in 2019!

I would actually LTB. I could never marry someone who came out with such drivel.

I think just like heterosexual relationships it's not just about the intercourse

On the contrary. It’s all about who you’re sexually attracted to. Not about your behaviour, your mannerisms, your likes or dislikes, the way you dress... gay or straight is solely about whether you are attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex.

I don't follow your logic lime?

I was just pointing out that the OPs DH probably thinks that it's down to environment/upbringing too otherwise he wouldn't be coming out with such drivel about making him turn gay from a bit of pampering.
He might see it as bad, you might see it as of course it's OK (which it is of course) but surely you don't think that a bit of nail polish with mum and sisters could be a factor in whether they turn out gay or not, regardless of whether you see it as good or bad?

No of course not. I don't think anyone has any clear ideas what the factors might be, and of course environment may only make a difference if your genetic potential is there. By "environmental factors" I would think it would be more subtle and random things than social interactions as a child.

Sorry, I'm really confused.

Isn't the OP's DH the only person who's saying the nail polish and so on might 'make' the child gay? All other people on the thread have said is that they don't believe homosexuality is 100% genetic. I thought it was you who claimed we were saying the same thing as the DH, wasn't it?

Has his homophobia only presented itself now?

Its not any sort of political statement to say that sexual orientation is a mixture of nature and nurture.

It is a statement of scientific fact.

The 'nurture' in that statement does not, however, have anything to do with nail varnish or pamper parties though. It has more to do with environment, in the womb, in the family unit and in society as a whole.

Studies return values in a wide range for the concordance of homosexuality in identical twins, but more recent studies seem to show its actually quite low, and therefore the relevance of primary genetic code in determining sexuality is also low.

It was useful when people are all homophobic and dumb to point to the genetic component, to make them understand that they are being arses....but in more liberal society its okay to point out that the majority of homosexuality does not come down to genetics at all.

It's attitudes like this that make parents - like the ones the Tavistock says they've seen - send their dress-and-pamper-loving sons to be turned into girls.
Straight boys can't like girly things.
Therefore if my boy likes pampering he's gay.
Oh no that's too awful! Maybe he's a girl? Yes! Turn him into a girl! Then he can like pampering.

Oh dear. Could it be that your dp is threatened by your bi-ness? Bit of a reach I know as my dh isn't threatened by my hetero-ness.

Your DH needs to stop this right now it's incredibly immature... he doesn't need to pass on his insecurity about his own masculinity onto his son... playing with makeup does not make you gay or in some way not a man!!