Maggie's Farm

I have questions about the methodology of the study. How did the shift go from "only" attracted to the opposite sex to "mostly" attracted? Was it a change in how the question was asked? Was there a change in the order or emphasis of questions? Was "mostly" defined differently?

Case in point - and I'm not younger - but I'd admit to only being attracted to women. However, as my wife loves to point out, I have my 'bromances' from time to time. I hate that term, she loves it because I hate it. There are men whose company I enjoy and prefer to spend time with. Am I attracted to them? Of course. Not sexually, but there's no question they are my "bros" as my boys call it.

It seems to me that (at least from a male perspective) this concept has become much more commonly accepted and the term "only" has shifted to "mostly" based on the idea that "Yeah, I'd only date/marry/hook up with girls, but Jake is my bro and sure I'm attracted to him."

I will hesitate to pass judgement on women, though. In my experience I've definitely seen more fluidity on preferences. It's not to say all women are likely to shift preferences, because there is no way my wife is changing (per her own statements, not my opinion). But I dated 3 women whose preferences 'shifted' back and forth over the years. To the point that one finally made the leap and plays for the other team full time now. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just what she either felt or decided (depending on how you think that goes).

I really don't think the homosexual community grows via recruitment or by using surveys. I do think they and their sympathizers use surveys to jam ideas down people's throats. I suppose it's better than using laws, but the reality is jamming the ideas down your throat is the precursor to jamming the law down your throat, because first you have to build the support.

No, I was referring to the hardcore population.

I recognize the 'edge' condition to which you refer, but that is really just marginalia, in my estimation.

Here's an example of why I consider it meaningless. My senior year of college, I had to produce a half hour long program. It could be about anything I wanted. My roommate and I, being good friends and in the same major, decided to do the opening scene of "Betrayal" by Harold Pinter.

It's a scene in which an opposite sex couple who had an affair meet for the first time in several years and begin dissecting their lives and what happened in their relationship.

We chose to play the roles - 2 men having the conversation. As it turned out, it was absolutely hilarious, and I have to admit as someone who had shared 3 very close years of living with a good friend the scene managed to address a few things in our own relationship, which made it even funnier.

To an outside observer, this may have 'crossed the line' (it was 1984) or been indicative of us promoting or condoning gay behavior. It was neither. It was just theater. I don't promote or condone homosexuality, I just don't happen to care one way or the other whether someone is homosexual, and sometimes a scene like that, so dramatic when played straight, is hilarious when played gay.

I wonder if our behavior caused someone 'on the edge' to go over? I doubt it, but I don't really care, either. I don't think it matters. Ultimately, if they were 'on the edge', their reasons for being there had little to do with a choice, and more to do with them suppressing other needs or desires which are (or were) intrinsically part of their character. Our scene may have finally been the final thing to convince them "I've got to find out if this is what I really want?"

I don't think there are many people out there who seek sexual gratification by any means possible. I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just saying I think they are far fewer than the number of people who have a specific preference. Whether the catalyst which sends them over the edge is me doing my final project at school, or an article they read in a paper, or a survey run by a group - does it matter? Chances are the catalyst is going to kick in somewhere, sometime...and there's no telling what it's going to be.

Which is why I'm more concerned about the 'setting up' of attitudes for the passage of law, rather than the 'recruitment' or 'edge' issues.

I don't think there can be a particular change in social norms which leads people to alter their preferences. I could be wrong, but I think most of this is genetic and there aren't really many people out there living on the fringe who are pushed into testing behaviors based on a catalyst.

That's why I questioned the methodology. I don't think there's been a change. I think what's changed is how the surveys are done.