Bi-sexuality in women?

[Yoink]

A "side effect" of the patriarchal ideas is that men are accustomed to being the sexual persuers and not those in the position of being sexually persued.

Ancient Greece was far closer to being a "patriarchy" in the literal sense than modern Western society is, and yet certain forms of homosexuality were widely and openly practiced in that society. I don't think this part of your argument bears a close examination.

[kellyb]

Here's a different link:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13

In any case, your theory is that the army is desensitizing them to killing the enemy, but hasn't realized that that's not actually effective?



No. My theory is that they've yet to come up with a way to make the ever present threat of death, and wittnessing their friends getting killed routinely, non-traumatic.

[kellyb]

That doesn't sound to me like male privilege, or at least not in any sense that does not require considerable unpacking.

A frequent complaint of men disgruntled with how society works is that they are expected to be the one to ask women out, expected to pay for dates, expected to pay for rings and so on. The romantic pursuer/pursued relationship seems to me to favour the pursued in most cases. The pursued get to operate from a position of financial and emotional security, whereas the pursuer has to take the emotional and financial initiative.

(This is not to say that many men and women nowadays do not expect and get equal relationships where it doesn't matter who asks who out, or who pays for what).

What you are arguing for doesn't seem to me like evidence for patriarchy at all. It looks more like evidence that male homosexuality threatens traditional conceptions of masculinity which have nothing to do with privilege in relation to women.

Or to put in another way, it's not all about you. Male homosexuality isn't threatening because it might empower women. It's seen as threatening because it might draw men into acting in non-masculine ways, and this threatens men whose adherence to culturally generated norms of masculinity is central to their identity and self-esteem.

There's male heterosexual privilege, too. Being a male heterosexual is a very privileged position to be in (especially if you're white).

Regarding the idea that it's a bummer for dudes that they have to spend money and effort to get laid, that must be terrible.
:(
I'll light a candle for the butthurt of all those poor men who had to pay the bar tab before getting some.

[Marduk]

A frequent complaint of men disgruntled with how society works is that they are expected to be the one to ask women out, expected to pay for dates, expected to pay for rings and so on. The romantic pursuer/pursued relationship seems to me to favour the pursued in most cases. The pursued get to operate from a position of financial and emotional security, whereas the pursuer has to take the emotional and financial initiative.

I feel really sorry for the financial burden that regarding women as objects that can be bought, must place on those men, it must be just awful for them to have to actually pay for being so bigotted
:D

[kellyb]

Ancient Greece was far closer to being a "patriarchy" in the literal sense than modern Western society is, and yet certain forms of homosexuality were widely and openly practiced in that society. I don't think this part of your argument bears a close examination.

The culture wasn't permiated with Judeo-Christian ideas about homosexuality and the ideal male patriarch. Why is it surprising that it was different then?

We're dealing with fluid cultures with many complex influences here, not physics and gravity.

[GreyICE]

No. My theory is that they've yet to come up with a way to make the ever present threat of death, and wittnessing their friends getting killed routinely, non-traumatic.

I submit that they haven't come up with a way to make killing people less traumatic either. They've just come up with a way to make less soldiers panic and freeze up or fire wildly in combat, which saves the lives of both our soldiers and civilians (on both sides). It kinda blows if you're fighting our soldiers, but, well...

[kellyb]

I submit that they haven't come up with a way to make killing people less traumatic either. They've just come up with a way to make less soldiers panic and freeze up or fire wildly in combat, which saves the lives of both our soldiers and civilians (on both sides). It kinda blows if you're fighting our soldiers, but, well...

Do you have any evidence that killing the enemy is routinely traumatic at all?

ETA: I haven't looked, but am assuming I can find evidence if you want (because my anecdotal evidence is THAT consistent), but in my anecdotal experience from talking to vets, PTSD overwhelmingly comes from the incessant threat of personal death and from seeing your buddies die.

[Kevin_Lowe]

There's male heterosexual privilege, too. Being a male heterosexual is a very privileged position to be in (especially if you're white).

That doesn't work as an explanation either. Someone else being homosexual doesn't affect my privileges as a male heterosexual.


Regarding the idea that it's a bummer for dudes that they have to spend money and effort to get laid, that must be terrible.
:(
I'll light a candle for the butthurt of all those poor men who had to pay the bar tab before getting some.

I'm 100% in support of forms of feminism that work towards genuine equality, and eliminating the many forms of irrational prejudice that hurt or restrict the choices of women and men.

However I've got no time for the forms of feminism that belittle or deny those aspects of our society that do hurt or restrict the choices of men, or which go so far as to celebrate those harms as payback for the various ways women have been hurt by sexism.

[Marduk]

Do you have any evidence that killing the enemy is routinely traumatic at all?

http://www.combatstress.org.uk/
bit of a no brainer
:D

[kellyb]

http://www.combatstress.org.uk/
bit of a no brainer
:D

Can you quote the relevant part?

[GreyICE]

Do you have any evidence that killing the enemy is routinely traumatic at all?

ETA: I haven't looked, but am assuming I can find evidence if you want (because my anecdotal evidence is THAT consistent), but in my anecdotal experience from talking to vets, PTSD overwhelmingly comes from the incessant threat of personal death and from seeing your buddies die.
/facepalm

Follow marduk's link.

By the way, one of the most commonly cited 'desensitization' studies is the one that shows in combat only 20-25% of troops fired their weapon in WW II, and only 55% in Vietnam. Overlooked, of course, is the fact that in each combat they were different troops. Were these people unable to bring themselves to fire rotated? Was 'firing' a duty that they traded off every combat?

Of course not. It wasn't that in combat only 1/4 of the people could actually bring themselves to fire, it was that in combat only 1/4th of the people were actually in a position to effectively shoot at the enemy. By Vietnam, half of our troops had the training and coordination to lay down fire. Modern times, the percentages are even higher.

It wasn't that in WWII our troops were too sensitive to pull the trigger. It was that unit training, coordination and cohesion were so poor that only a quarter were in a position to fire and knew what to do in that position!

[kellyb]

That doesn't work as an explanation either. Someone else being homosexual doesn't affect my privileges as a male heterosexual.

So, are you totally neutral towards the sight of gay dudes making out, and do you think your perception is reflective of the general male heterosexual population?



I'm 100% in support of forms of feminism that work towards genuine equality, and eliminating the many forms of irrational prejudice that hurt or restrict the choices of women and men.

However I've got no time for the forms of feminism that belittle or deny those aspects of our society that do hurt or restrict the choices of men, or which go so far as to celebrate those harms as payback for the various ways women have been hurt by sexism.

:confused:

In theory I guess I agree with you. I'm curious about the specifics, though.

What "forms of feminism" are presently effectually denying or restricting the choices of men?

[Kevin_Lowe]

/facepalm

Follow marduk's link.

By the way, one of the most commonly cited 'desensitization' studies is the one that shows in combat only 20-25% of troops fired their weapon in WW II, and only 55% in Vietnam. Overlooked, of course, is the fact that in each combat they were different troops. Were these people unable to bring themselves to fire rotated? Was 'firing' a duty that they traded off every combat?

Of course not. It wasn't that in combat only 1/4 of the people could actually bring themselves to fire, it was that in combat only 1/4th of the people were actually in a position to effectively shoot at the enemy. By Vietnam, half of our troops had the training and coordination to lay down fire. Modern times, the percentages are even higher.

It wasn't that in WWII our troops were too sensitive to pull the trigger. It was that unit training, coordination and cohesion were so poor that only a quarter were in a position to fire and knew what to do in that position!

Cite?

My understanding was that those were the numbers of troops who actually fired at specific enemy targets with the intent to kill them, as opposed to either not firing at all or just firing in the general direction of the enemy forces.

I find it hard to imagine in a WW1 trench warfare situation that only 25% of the men in the trench were in position to fire on people advancing across No Man's Land.

[kellyb]

/facepalm

Follow marduk's link.

By the way, one of the most commonly cited 'desensitization' studies is the one that shows in combat only 20-25% of troops fired their weapon in WW II, and only 55% in Vietnam. Overlooked, of course, is the fact that in each combat they were different troops. Were these people unable to bring themselves to fire rotated? Was 'firing' a duty that they traded off every combat?

Of course not. It wasn't that in combat only 1/4 of the people could actually bring themselves to fire, it was that in combat only 1/4th of the people were actually in a position to effectively shoot at the enemy. By Vietnam, half of our troops had the training and coordination to lay down fire. Modern times, the percentages are even higher.

It wasn't that in WWII our troops were too sensitive to pull the trigger. It was that unit training, coordination and cohesion were so poor that only a quarter were in a position to fire and knew what to do in that position!

Marduk's link is sort of useless without a quote. Unless you're willing to spend many hours looking for the relevant part, I guess.

So, you're saying men don't have to be desensitized to killing others? So it's sort of a non-issue for that reason?

[Marduk]

Marduk's link is sort of useless without a quote. Unless you're willing to spend many hours looking for the relevant part, I guess.

So, you're saying men don't have to be desensitized to killing others? So it's sort of a non-issue for that reason?

seeing your friends being killed around you is stressful, even being in a situation where your friends may possibly be killed is stressful in ways that are above and beyond what most people ever experience, when you remember that most troops think more of their colleagues than their own families (because thats part of their training) its easy to see how that stress becomes traumatic. why is that difficult to understand ?

[kellyb]

seeing your friends being killed around you is stressful, even being in a situation where your friends may possibly be killed is stressful in ways that are above and beyond what most people ever experience, why is that difficult to understand ?

It's not. I think it's obvious.

GreyICE was arguing that PTSD was primarily rooted in having to kill the enemy, though, as opposed to being on the receiving end of life-threatening attacks.

[Marduk]

It's not. I think it's obvious.

GreyICE was arguing that PTSD was primarily rooted in having to kill the enemy, though, as opposed to being on the receiving end of life-threatening attacks.

then GreyICE doesn't know what hes talking about, clearly hes never served his country unless it was in the catering corps.
:p

[The Fallen Serpent]

I'm 100% in support of forms of feminism that work towards genuine equality, and eliminating the many forms of irrational prejudice that hurt or restrict the choices of women and men.In my experience this is what those who call themselves feminists practice.

However I've got no time for the forms of feminism that belittle or deny those aspects of our society that do hurt or restrict the choices of men, or which go so far as to celebrate those harms as payback for the various ways women have been hurt by sexism.

This I have mostly witnessed being by those who oppose feminism. I do not doubt there are radical feminist groups that go to the extreme in their philosophy, but I have not witnessed a large influence or membership. Most misandry seems rooted in the same place as traditional misogyny.

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, are you totally neutral towards the sight of gay dudes making out, and do you think your perception is reflective of the general male heterosexual population?


I find it a bit awkward to be around anybody else doing serious making-out, and because it's less common my brain does do a brief double-take when I see a gay or lesbian couple holding hands. However in terms of moral judgements yes, I'm totally neutral with regard to what consenting adults get up to.

As for whether my views are reflective of the general male heterosexual population, I reject the question. There is no such thing as the general male heterosexual community. My views are reflective of the people I hang around with, and not reflective of other social groups.


:confused:

In theory I guess I agree with you. I'm curious about the specifics, though.

What "forms of feminism" are presently effectually denying or restricting the choices of men?

The attitude you and Marduk just expressed, for example, belittling the social disadvantages men, particularly poor men, face in dating and marriage, is an example of a social attitude which denies or restricts men from making the choices they want to make.

I see no fundamental difference between, say, women needing to provide a dowry to get married and men needing to provide a ring worth two months' salary to get engaged.

I fully support feminism when it's an expression of the moral view that everyone should be free to make the choices they want to make and to enjoy life in their own way, without arbitrary barriers based on sex. However if you hold that moral view you are going to be equally offended by social constructs that harm either sex.

If you're offended by social constructs that hinder women but you mock anyone who complains about social constructs that hinder men then I believe that you are being hypocritical. If I mocked one of your points by saying "that must be terrible" and offering to "light a candle for the sand in their vaginas" would you consider that a polite and reasonable response, or a nasty cheap shot?

I've got no problem with people who say, for example, "I recognise that rape is a much bigger problem for men in prison than for women on university campuses, but since I'm on campus I'll focus on the issue closer to home". Or with people who say "I recognise that violent assault is a bigger problem for men as a group than for women even when you include domestic violence, but I still see domestic violence as a problem we should solve, so I'm working on that now". I have got a problem with people who emphasise the social disadvantages women face and belittle the social disadvantages men face (particularly poor men), while seeing no contradiction.

[kellyb]

then GreyICE doesn't know what hes talking about, clearly hes never served his country unless it was in the catering corps.
:p

Well, that's his argument.

[kellyb]

In my experience this is what those who call themselves feminists practice.



This I have mostly witnessed being by those who oppose feminism. I do not doubt there are radical feminist groups that go to the extreme in their philosophy, but I have not witnessed a large influence or membership. Most misandry seems rooted in the same place as traditional misogyny.

Thank you.
:o

[Kevin_Lowe]

In my experience this is what those who call themselves feminists practice.

This I have mostly witnessed being by those who oppose feminism. I do not doubt there are radical feminist groups that go to the extreme in their philosophy, but I have not witnessed a large influence or membership. Most misandry seems rooted in the same place as traditional misogyny.

While I agree in broad terms, what's your response to this post from just a second ago in this very thread?


Regarding the idea that it's a bummer for dudes that they have to spend money and effort to get laid, that must be terrible.
:(
I'll light a candle for the butthurt of all those poor men who had to pay the bar tab before getting some.

Would you call that feminist extremist misandry? I wouldn't. I don't see Kellyb's positions as being in any way extreme.

It's just the casual misandry of someone who is very alert to injustices against their own sex and who mocks and trivialises injustices against the other sex.

[Cynic]

In theory I guess I agree with you. I'm curious about the specifics, though.

What "forms of feminism" are presently effectually denying or restricting the choices of men?


Effectually? None. Being effective isn't the point though, I expect.

Personally, I take exception to the name feminism. Sure, it's associated with something positive, affirming, defending (and defensive). But when someone describes themselves as a feminist, there's a little circuit in my brain that cuts in and overrides my gut instinct to assume they are, in fact, anti-men. I had the circuit installed to prevent the misunderstanding, but it's annoying that I had to do it.

Because that's the language convention, right? If someone says they're pro one thing, it's generally also a statement that they're anti something else, something logically connected and diametrically opposed to whatever they're pro. If you're pro-gun, you're anti- gun restriction. If you're pro-life, you're anti-abortion. If you're pro-drug, you're anti-drug laws. Etc. If you're pro-woman, are you then... anti-man? Doesn't work. If the goal is to promote gender equality, why isn't the term neutral?

Of course, the term is "feminist", not "pro-women". But consider term "masculinist". Almost sounds dirty, doesn't it? My spell-checker doesn't even know what that word is. "Gender equalitist" just don't have much of a ring to it, I agree. As I said elsewhere recently: Bah. Language.

My point is, I think feminists would get more traction if they didn't use a term to describe themselves that didn't immediately set their "opposition" on the defensive every time they used it. Maybe it's me.

[kellyb]

As for whether my views are reflective of the general male heterosexual population, I reject the question.
This is not surprising.

The attitude you and Marduk just expressed, for example, belittling the social disadvantages men, particularly poor men, face in dating and marriage, is an example of a social attitude which denies or restricts men from making the choices they want to make.

I see no fundamental difference between, say, women needing to provide a dowry to get married and men needing to provide a ring worth two months' salary to get engaged.

The only people who buy into the "two months wages for a wedding ring" idea are morons.
Yeah, it's JUST LIKE the societies where women are bought and sold as commodities.

If you're offended by social constructs that hinder women but you mock anyone who complains about social constructs that hinder men then I believe that you are being hypocritical.
Where are men being hindered outside of cusdoty disputes, which coincidentally, drive women into poverty?

If I mocked one of your points by saying "that must be terrible" and offering to "light a candle for the sand in their vaginas" would you consider that a polite and reasonable response, or a nasty cheap shot?

It would depend on the quality of your argument.

I have got a problem with people who emphasise the social disadvantages women face and belittle the social disadvantages men face (particularly poor men), while seeing no contradiction.

WHAT societal disadvantage?

Men are allowed to be warriors? check

Women are awarded custody more often, which drives them into poverty while the fathers prosper from divorce? check

etc.

Look, if you feel, as a man, abused by the system, I'm more than willing to take your side, but I need good specifics. And whining about the costs of wedding rings ain't it.

[Cynic]

WHAT societal disadvantage?

Men are allowed to be warriors? check

Women are awarded custody more often, which drives them into poverty while the fathers prosper from divorce? check


Men are allowed to be warriors which gets them killed more often. "Oh... what a lucky man... he was..." (With apologies to EL&P.) By all means, women should be allowed to be warriors. But what could be motivating you to omit the downside annotation here and not with child custody?

For that matter, why are you trying to sell the idea that woman getting awarded custody more often is anti-women? That's absurd. In any child custody case, it is presumed that both parties want the child. Otherwise there's no contest. If there's a bias against women it's making the prejudicial statement that women are better parents and children are better off with their mothers. Which isn't, when you think about it, much better than suggesting Chinese kids should get custody of math books. In a child custody case, the parent that walks away with the kid is the winner, period. I think we agree that the motivation for awarding children to women preferentially is prejudicial against women, but your argument is lacking.


Look, if you feel, as a man, abused by the system, I'm more than willing to take your side, but I need good specifics. And whining about the costs of wedding rings ain't it.


My wife wouldn't allow me to buy her a wedding ring. It was a difficult thing to process. As I feel is appropriate, she rejects chivalry in favor of equality. Any combination of the two is hypocritical. At the same time, it felt a little emasculating. Just a little. Mostly it was a relief because I couldn't afford one anyway. But my situation is damned unusual. What I see mostly is a society full of people who want their cake and eat it too -- on both sides of the gender divide. Acknowledging it on one side and not the other is, as I say, hypocritical. At least, if one's goal is equality.

[kellyb]

Effectually? None. Being effective isn't the point though, I expect.

Personally, I take exception to the name feminism. Sure, it's associated with something positive, affirming, defending (and defensive). But when someone describes themselves as a feminist, there's a little circuit in my brain that cuts in and overrides my gut instinct to assume they are, in fact, anti-men. I had the circuit installed to prevent the misunderstanding, but it's annoying that I had to do it.

Because that's the language convention, right? If someone says they're pro one thing, it's generally also a statement that they're anti something else, something logically connected and diametrically opposed to whatever they're pro. If you're pro-gun, you're anti- gun restriction. If you're pro-life, you're anti-abortion. If you're pro-drug, you're anti-drug laws. Etc. If you're pro-woman, are you then... anti-man? Doesn't work. If the goal is to promote gender equality, why isn't the term neutral?

Of course, the term is "feminist", not "pro-women". But consider term "masculinist". Almost sounds dirty, doesn't it? My spell-checker doesn't even know what that word is. "Gender equalitist" just don't have much of a ring to it, I agree. As I said elsewhere recently: Bah. Language.

My point is, I think feminists would get more traction if they didn't use a term to describe themselves that didn't immediately set their "opposition" on the defensive every time they used it. Maybe it's me.

I hear what you're saying. I'm not, personally, powerful enough to change the language of feminism, even if I wanted to.
All I can do is think about feminism critically and do my part to advocate critical thinking about feminism (which tends to put me in a position of being scorned by all interested parties, but such is life, I guess.)

[Marduk]

The attitude you and Marduk just expressed, for example, belittling the social disadvantages men, particularly poor men, face in dating and marriage, is an example of a social attitude which denies or restricts men from making the choices they want to make.

No its an example of an attitude of seeing men and women as equals. I am quite happy to have women buy me presents or dinner or anything they like which makes them happy, I don't insist on making their desires and needs impotent because a judaeo christian patriarchal societies rules say so.

Sure some women expect men to act like misogynists, but I don't get on well with women who are that insecure.

I certainly still buy my other half a hell of a lot of presents and dinners, (I also pay the rent and do all the food shopping), I would argue that my yearly outlay on that is several percentages higher than the type of men who do it begrudgingly but I do so because she deserves them, not because she thinks shes owed them. But yanno, taking her breakfast in bed and letting her know how special she is to me is worth more to her than any financial incentive.

btw we have a solid relationship built on mutual respect for each other, shes pansexual, into anal sex and we currently have two bisexual girlfriends and a scorchingly bisexual boyfriend, neither of us is terrified of "fecal matter".
:p

[kellyb]

Men are allowed to be warriors which gets them killed more often. "Oh... what a lucky man... he was..." (With apologies to EL&P.) By all means, women should be allowed to be warriors. But what could be motivating you to omit the downside annotation here and not with child custody?

If you're good enough (and lucky enough) at it, you live and are awarded with the status as a "real" worthy member of society.
eta:
And evolutionary psychology suggests that men protecting women from external threats was what gave rise to men seeing themselves as OWNING women. Patriarchy is our biological norm. (as is genocide, neonaticide, and a bunch of other horrific aspects of human nature which we work to correct in modern society.)


For that matter, why are you trying to sell the idea that woman getting awarded custody more often is anti-women? That's absurd. In any child custody case, it is presumed that both parties want the child. Otherwise there's no contest. If there's a bias against women it's making the prejudicial statement that women are better parents and children are better off with their mothers. Which isn't, when you think about it, much better than suggesting Chinese kids should get custody of math books. In a child custody case, the parent that walks away with the kid is the winner, period. I think we agree that the motivation for awarding children to women preferentially is prejudicial against women, but your argument is lacking.

Yes, this is an area where women "win". It's also the area where the women go into poverty and the men get richer. I think it's a bizarre coincidence, btw. Even when we win, the "win" makes us "lose" in a different and profound way.
And this is the primary area where we "win".

What I see mostly is a society full of people who want their cake and eat it too -- on both sides of the gender divide. Acknowledging it on one side and not the other is, as I say, hypocritical. At least, if one's goal is equality.
I agree.
I'm just not seeing how chicks aren't "overall" the losers (generally) in our present situation.

[Kevin_Lowe]

WHAT societal disadvantage?

Men are allowed to be warriors? check

I'm happy to count the fact that men can get front-line infantry jobs if that's what they really want to do as an advantage for them.

However you also have to count the enormous history of conscription, the social pressure to join the army in times of war, and the sick glamourization of the armed forces all of which lead to men getting killed or permanently psychologically harmed as disadvantages for men in general if you want to be consistent.

Overall I consider, throughout history, the very high chance of being used as cannon fodder an enormous downside to being born with testicles.

Note that I'm not saying that when you add everything up men are worse off than women. That's a value judgement anyway. What I'm saying is that there are meaningful disadvantages to being a man that you are belittling.


Women are awarded custody more often, which drives them into poverty while the fathers prosper from divorce? check

As Cynic said, if the father doesn't want custody there's no custody hearing. The idea that fathers prosper from divorce is one-sided to say the very least. Maybe they do in some jurisdictions, but in others it's routine to levy such heavy alimony and child support payments on divorced fathers that they work full-time to barely pay the rent on a tiny apartment, while their non-working ex-wife lives in the family home with the kids and a new boyfriend. Making wildly generalised statements that "fathers prosper from divorce" indicates to me that you've only ever read one side of that issue.


Look, if you feel, as a man, abused by the system, I'm more than willing to take your side, but I need good specifics. And whining about the costs of wedding rings ain't it.

Once again, there are lots of little ways women are discriminated against as well as the big ways. I don't mock or belittle the little issues, although I do wonder whether you'd mock the matter if you were faced with social pressure to either end a romantic relationship or stump up two months' salary to continue it just because you were a woman.

You've already insulted people in that situation by calling them morons. Would you take it kindly if I called women with breast implants morons, and dismissed any feminist concerns about breast implants on the basis that anyone who succumbs to social pressures about beauty and body image is a moron?

That would go down well in the feminist literature. "You're Just Morons And You Deserve It: A New Approach To Social Constructions of Body Image and Gender".

Just offhand the treatment of male versus female offenders in underage sex cases, the rate of violent assaults on men as opposed to women (yes, including domestic violence), the rate at which men commit crimes and are imprisoned, the social pressure to join the military or to engage in violence of other forms, and the still-existing disadvantages men face in family court in some jurisdictions are all examples of areas where our society treats men more harshly than women. Once again I'm not saying that overall all men are worse off than all women, but rather that it's inconsistent and hypocritical to deny or minimalise those cases where men are indeed worse off than women, or to justify them as payback for the cases where women are worse off.

[Kevin_Lowe]

No its an example of an attitude of seeing men and women as equals. I am quite happy to have women buy me presents or dinner or anything they like which makes them happy, I don't insist on making their desires and needs impotent because a judaeo christian patriarchal societies rules say so.

Sure some women expect men to act like misogynists, but I don't get on well with women who are that insecure.

I certainly still buy my other half a hell of a lot of presents and dinners, (I also pay the rent and do all the food shopping), I would argue that my yearly outlay on that is several percentages higher than the type of men who do it begrudgingly but I do so because she deserves them, not because she thinks shes owed them. But yanno, taking her breakfast in bed and letting her know how special she is to me is worth more to her than any financial incentive.

btw we have a solid relationship built on mutual respect for each other, shes pansexual, into anal sex and we currently have two bisexual girlfriends and a scorchingly bisexual boyfriend, neither of us is terrified of "fecal matter".
:p

This seems to me exactly like saying "A woman is just a moron if she has body image issues, I don't look anything like a supermodel and I'm having kinky six-way sex right now".

If the answer to all problems of social prejudice and unfair expectations was for everyone to just decide to ignore them we wouldn't need feminism. We'd just circulate an email saying "Memo: You don't need to be influenced by social constructions regarding what men or women should be and do, just ignore them all. Thank you very much, have a nice day, hope that helped!" and that would be the end of the matter. Hey presto, all social inequality based on sex solved just like that.

The fact is these social constructions are self-reinforcing by mechanisms which punish people who transgress against them. Some people are lucky enough to find social groupings, jobs or whatever where they escape such pressures but many people are not. That's why we have feminism in the first place.

[GreyICE]

It's not. I think it's obvious.

GreyICE was arguing that PTSD was primarily rooted in having to kill the enemy, though, as opposed to being on the receiving end of life-threatening attacks.

Yeah, um, nice strawman.

What the hell? Is lying just a pass time here? Are your arguments really so bad that the best you can do is lie?

At least we can live with the wonderful knowledge that some good has come out of this thread - Ivor has a soulmate.

[GreyICE]

then GreyICE doesn't know what hes talking about, clearly hes never served his country unless it was in the catering corps.
:p
I assume you haven't been following this thread. I suggest you do before taking her word for anything.

As for what I have or haven't done for my country, let me offer you a kind suggestion: shut the hell up.

[Kevin_Lowe]

We've wandered away from the original point though, which was the assertion that patriarchy was the reason why gay men face social sanctions more so than lesbians. I can't see any defence of that point. That point got ignored in favour of cheap shots about engagement etiquette.

Could you expand some more about why you think patriarchy is the fundamental issue there?

[Cynic]

It seems like the porn industry might finally have some useful insights to offer.

[Marduk]

I assume you haven't been following this thread. I suggest you do before taking her word for anything.

As for what I have or haven't done for my country, let me offer you a kind suggestion: shut the hell up.

You're the one here making ridiculous claims for people who serve their countries in a military capacity, so youre the one who should take your own advice.
Should I be offended because youre badmouthing me and anyone else who has ?
or should you simply have more respect for people who suffered for your right to make ridiculous assumptions
:rolleyes:

perhaps you should clarify your opinion for those of us who have been mistakenly assuming we knew what it was from your posts

[Yoink]

The culture wasn't permiated with Judeo-Christian ideas about homosexuality and the ideal male patriarch. Why is it surprising that it was different then?

We're dealing with fluid cultures with many complex influences here, not physics and gravity.

Your claim was that homosexuality undermines patriarchy. I showed that there is an historical case that disproves that claim.

If you have a new claim that homosexuality undermines certain key tenets of Christian belief then that's an entirely different and unrelated argument.

[GreyICE]

You're the one here making ridiculous claims for people who serve their countries in a military capacity, so youre the one who should take your own advice.
Should I be offended because youre badmouthing me and anyone else who has ?
or should you simply have more respect for people who suffered for your right to make ridiculous assumptions
:rolleyes:

perhaps you should clarify your opinion for those of us who have been mistakenly assuming we knew what it was from your posts

What ridiculous claims? Perhaps you can quote me?

Oh I'm sorry, you're a 9/11 truther who thinks the towers were destroyed by space lasers, so I can't take anything you say seriously.

If you go back to the original, you'll see it was Ivor who claimed that we were training our men to be soulless killers, but hey, don't let me interrupt your little rant. Want some thermite with that, it's great for taking down buildings!

[Marduk]

What ridiculous claims? Perhaps you can quote me?

Ok, shall we start with when attractive women fancy each other they must be doing it for a mans benefit
Because the two hot chicks making out are probably doing it for the men's benefit, and yes, that's hot.

or how women don't function properly
Why do women always act illogically?
or how out of touch you are with reality
Getting fired for sex discrimination is pretty difficult in America.
Its written into law in the US civil rights charter, perhaps you should read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
or even the equal pay act
http://finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_20 6_d
classed as gross misconduct in most companies regulations

These are just from a couple of pages I checked, but youre right, it was Ivor who was talking crap about military training and I withdraw my statement. Apologies




Oh I'm sorry, you're a 9/11 truther who thinks the towers were destroyed by space lasers, so I can't take anything you say seriously.

I'm not a 9/11 anything, I really wasn't affected by in it to the degree that I have an opinion and I have never posted my support on the subject in either direction. I'm quite happy to believe that it was the act of terrorists without any government assistance barring incompetance
;)

[GreyICE]

Ok, shall we start with when attractive women fancy each other they must be doing it for a mans benefit
We were specifically discussing the case where two women were making out in the middle of a bar or at a party, basically the opposite of a discrete makeout. I distinctly clarified this in case anyone missed it just a few posts later.

But nice! You can quote out of context. Remind me how that's different from lying about what I said again.

or how women don't function properly
Yep, highlighting the absurdity of her blanket statement on the feelings of men. Almost all blanket statements about genders are incorrect, hers as much as any other. Which I quoted, and we discussed. But hey, out of context again!

or how out of touch you are with reality
Haha. I'm actually dead on there. To meet the legal requirements for sex discrimination, it must be a consistent environment - there are almost always multiple incidents, over a good period of time, of a reasonably severe nature.

Your company's particular policy may vary, of course, but legally it's far more stringent than most people think it is.


Its written into law in the US civil rights charter, perhaps you should read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
or even the equal pay act
http://finduslaw.com/equal_pay_act_of_1963_epa_29_u_s_code_chapter_8_20 6_d
classed as gross misconduct in most companies regulations
Yep! It's very difficult. Violating the civil rights act or actually having systemic enough unequal pay that you've violated the law takes some serious effort. You almost certainly are discriminating if you are breaking those laws, it's not something you stumble into.


These are just from a couple of pages I checked, but youre right, it was Ivor who was talking crap about military training and I withdraw my statement. Apologies Well at least you were right about exactly one thing so far. I applaud this upward trend in your posts.




I'm not a 9/11 anything, I really wasn't affected by in it to the degree that I have an opinion and I have never posted my support on the subject in either direction. I'm quite happy to believe that it was the act of terrorists without any government assistance barring incompetance
;)
:p

[kellyb]

As Cynic said, if the father doesn't want custody there's no custody hearing. The idea that fathers prosper from divorce is one-sided to say the very least. Maybe they do in some jurisdictions, but in others it's routine to levy such heavy alimony and child support payments on divorced fathers that they work full-time to barely pay the rent on a tiny apartment, while their non-working ex-wife lives in the family home with the kids and a new boyfriend. Making wildly generalised statements that "fathers prosper from divorce" indicates to me that you've only ever read one side of that issue.





As a general rule:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html
Divorce Myth 5: Following divorce, the woman's standard of living plummets by 73 percent while that of the man's improves by 42 percent.

Fact: This dramatic inequity, one of the most widely publicized statistics from the social sciences, was later found to be based on a faulty calculation. A reanalysis of the data determined that the woman's loss was 27 percent while the man's gain was 10 percent. Irrespective of the magnitude of the differences, the gender gap is real and seems not to have narrowed much in recent decades.

[kellyb]

Yeah, um, nice strawman.

What the hell? Is lying just a pass time here? Are your arguments really so bad that the best you can do is lie?

At least we can live with the wonderful knowledge that some good has come out of this thread - Ivor has a soulmate.

You realise this is the internet, right? Where I can just go back and quote your argument? LOL!
Mr "Ah. I had a feeling the patriarchy would come into this eventually" and "Or is logic part of the patriarchy?" to "Err...what patriarchy?"

lol.

Regarding military desensitization, you said:

Here's a different link:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/1/13

In any case, your theory is that the army is desensitizing them to killing the enemy, but hasn't realized that that's not actually effective?

...as though the PTSD mentioned in your link was the result of killing. Like that link about PTSD is evidence contradicting my evidence that the military does indeed desensitise soldiers to shooting at people.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

btw we have a solid relationship built on mutual respect for each other, shes pansexual, into anal sex and we currently have two bisexual girlfriends and a scorchingly bisexual boyfriend, neither of us is terrified of "fecal matter".
:p

Other than people who might come into intimate contact with your or your partners’ bodily fluids, why do you think anyone who has not shown interest in the subject wants to know how you or your partners express yourselves sexually?

I think you want to believe you shock or disgust people like me who you probably consider to be uptight, but rather than feeling shocked or disgusted what I’m actually thinking is why are you so needy for such a reaction?

[kellyb]

We've wandered away from the original point though, which was the assertion that patriarchy was the reason why gay men face social sanctions more so than lesbians. I can't see any defence of that point. That point got ignored in favour of cheap shots about engagement etiquette.

Could you expand some more about why you think patriarchy is the fundamental issue there?

To clarify, I think the patriarchy is probably the main factor behind the widespread acceptance of female bisexualism compared to more widespread disapproval of male homosexuality (and full on lesbianism, to a lesser extent.)

I hypothesize that a combination of male privilege and and heterosexual privilege has left modern men unfamiliar with, and thus alarmed by, being a potential sexual "target".

[Aepervius]

By "your time" do you mean in high school, or do you mean you NEVER met anyone bisexual? If the latter, then you led a very sheltered life.

I have never met anybody which openly claimed to be bisexual, and I haven't a sheltered life.

But seeign the statistic provided by somebody, my chance to have met a bi.women which openly admitted it, would have been up to now even accumulated, pretty low.

[arthwollipot]

I have never met anybody which openly claimed to be bisexual, and I haven't a sheltered life.You have now.

Or are you talking about meeting physically, in meatspace?

[Ivor the Engineer]

First of all, you're mischaracterizing the Dan Savage article. He doesn't say it is "edited" so that no poo is seen. He says that on very rare occasions there's some poo, and that they don't use those scenes. He says nothing about special "choreography" for the purposes of hiding poo. Again, the fact that you simply do not know the very first thing about what you are talking about simply shouts from everything you say. Look, thousands upon thousands of anal sex scenes are filmed every year in mainstream heterosexual pornography. You can go and find a representative sample of them using five minutes of browsing on your computer. I suggest you do so or you will simply continue to confirm your extraordinary ignorance with every post you make on the subject.

Anyway, I take it that your new argument is that the social disapproval of homosexuality is based on the fact that people not only imagine gay men having anal sex, but imagine that they do so in a particularly messy and disgusting way? I mean, none of the steps described in the Dan Savage piece are remotely complex or difficult for people in the "real world" to take. He's not saying that teams of trained technicians are required to "de-poo" participants in anal sex.

I take it that as well as watching no pornography ever you have also never seen a single TV sitcom. If you had, you'd realize that it's really no part of our cultural stereotypes about gay men that they are unusally messy or unusually desensitized to dirt. Quite the opposite. If you want to establish a character as probably gay on a TV show or film, you have someone who is particularly fussy about bodily hygiene and who is notably neater, tidier and cleaner than most of the other male characters.

ETA: I would recommend, by the way, that you pay particular attention to the very first letter in that Dan Savage column. Note the phrase 'once in a great while' and his suggestion that if you don't have a particular problem with santorum you probably don't even need to bother with a pre-anal-sex enema.

Please explain the reason for the preponderance of slang terms used to refer to anal sex which also refer indirectly to poo/flatulence and/or gay men, and are often used pejoratively.

Here's a few off the top of my head:


Fudge packer
Driving the Hershey highway
Goin' to brown town
Marmite miner
Fartpuncher

An article on disgust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/disgust.shtml

At the end of the 1990s, Dr Valerie Curtis of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine began to survey people in different countries to find out what things they found disgusting. Curtis uncovered some interesting cultural peculiarities. For example, food cooked by a menstruating woman was a frequent cause of disgust in India. While fat people scored highly as disgusting in the Netherlands.

But overall, people kept reporting the same things as revolting wherever they were from. It seems that whether we live in Islington or Isla Pinta, Margate or Marrakech, we are all disgusted by:


Bodily secretions - faeces (poo), vomit, sweat, spit, blood, pus, sexual fluids
Body parts - wounds, corpses, toenail clippings
Decaying food - especially rotting meat and fish, rubbish
Certain living creatures - flies, maggots, lice, worms, rats, dogs and cats
People who are ill, contaminated


These universal sources of disgust led Curtis to hypothesise that disgust might be genetic; hard-wired in our brains and imprinted on our biological code by millions of years of natural selection. But what persistent force in our past drove us to evolve such a powerful emotion?

I think what you and others are forgetting is that we have other incentives and drives which modify our behaviour. For example, rotting food is disgusting when you have a full belly, but no so much when you are starving hungry. Ever noticed that after being sexually satisfied you are disinterested in having sex for a while? In fact what may have been sexually desirable beforehand becomes uninteresting or even unpleasant once in the resolution phase after orgasm.

[arthwollipot]

Ever noticed that after being sexually satisfied you are disinterested in having sex for a while?Hm. You may have a point. Just let me think about this for a moment...

No, that's absolute crap.

[HansMustermann]

The culture wasn't permiated with Judeo-Christian ideas about homosexuality and the ideal male patriarch. Why is it surprising that it was different then?

We're dealing with fluid cultures with many complex influences here, not physics and gravity.

No, but they were an _actual_ patriarchy, while the modern redefinition of "patriarchy" is just a hyperbole and metaphor.

The Greeks gave us not just a great example of an actual patriarchy, but also the first written description of one. We're talking men having such power over women, that if you'd be accused of some crime as a free woman, only a man could talk for you in court. If you don't have a father or a husband to do it for you -- you know, a Greek version of a "pater familias" who owns you -- you wouldn't be afforded even the basic right to defend yourself in court. We're talking a society where we have an actual settlement in a civil case where a clause boils down to, "and you can have sex with my wife too." That kind of having jurisdiction over the woman. And we're talking about a society who rationalized that as women being barely half-way between men and animals. No, literally.

You can't get more literally patriarchy than that. That was the real deal. The real patriarchy.

And it had no problems whatsoever with homosexuality. Ditto for the Roman version I described earlier.

And they had no lack of ideas about what an ideal male patriarch would be, either. In fact, they had whole philosophy works dealing with that issue. (Same as any other issue, really.)

It was literally the apex of literal patriarchy. Nothing would come even close in AD times. But it had no trouble with homosexuality.

I think you pretty much answer your own objection when you say, "The culture wasn't permiated with Judeo-Christian ideas about homosexuality". IMHO that's really what it is. It has nothing to do with patriarchy per se, and everything to do with the BS ideas that Christianity brought into it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Hm. You may have a point. Just let me think about this for a moment...

No, that's absolute crap.

Right. So you want sex all of the time. There is no point after having sex you feel satisfied and are more interested in doing something else?

ETA: If so, why do you think you are typical of most people?

[arthwollipot]

Right. So you want sex all of the time. There is no point after having sex you feel satisfied and are more interested in doing something else?Speak English, man!

[Belz...]

Please explain further. Fact: a group of lesbian women or a group of gay men would not be able to reproduce. So how would communities help?

You are aware, of course, that homosexuals are not castrated ?

What I am interested in (and what I addressed in my initial reply) is what the relationship is between homosexuality and evolution. Surrogacy and artificial insemination do not seem like strong enough reproduction methods compared to opposite sex couples who can multiply like wildfire on a whim (see: the Duggars).

You're thinking too much in terms of individuals. Look at honey bees. Most of them can't reproduce. And yet...

[Belz...]

Right. So you want sex all of the time.

Non sequitur.

[Aepervius]

You have now.

Or are you talking about meeting physically, in meatspace?

Meatspace. cyberspace is another can of worm. You name it, it is on cyberspace. No matter how common or uncommon.

ETA: Anything is about 2 or 3 click away.

[kellyb]

No, but they were an _actual_ patriarchy, while the modern redefinition of "patriarchy" is just a hyperbole and metaphor.

The Greeks gave us not just a great example of an actual patriarchy, but also the first written description of one. We're talking men having such power over women, that if you'd be accused of some crime as a free woman, only a man could talk for you in court. If you don't have a father or a husband to do it for you -- you know, a Greek version of a "pater familias" who owns you -- you wouldn't be afforded even the basic right to defend yourself in court. We're talking a society where we have an actual settlement in a civil case where a clause boils down to, "and you can have sex with my wife too." That kind of having jurisdiction over the woman. And we're talking about a society who rationalized that as women being barely half-way between men and animals. No, literally.

You can't get more literally patriarchy than that. That was the real deal. The real patriarchy.

And it had no problems whatsoever with homosexuality. Ditto for the Roman version I described earlier.

And they had no lack of ideas about what an ideal male patriarch would be, either. In fact, they had whole philosophy works dealing with that issue. (Same as any other issue, really.)

It was literally the apex of literal patriarchy. Nothing would come even close in AD times. But it had no trouble with homosexuality.

I think you pretty much answer your own objection when you say, "The culture wasn't permiated with Judeo-Christian ideas about homosexuality". IMHO that's really what it is. It has nothing to do with patriarchy per se, and everything to do with the BS ideas that Christianity brought into it.

Well, I definitely don't disagree that a majority of the anti-gay dudes bias is rooted in religious ideas in the West. That would be the core factor in the privilege of Western heteronormativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity).

I don't think referring to the factors that contribute to male privilege as "the patriarchy" is hyperbolic; I think the effect is still very real (though much progress has been made in the last 50 years) and possibly rooted in biology. Patriarchal societal structures probably provided a significant survival advantage for some ancestor species of ours.

And I still think the apparent increase in bisexual behaviors in women (usually young women) is rooted, in part at least, by a combination of revolt against religious oppression mixed with an innate desire of women to gain the approval of men.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Speak English, man!

Which part of my question would you like simplified so you can understand it?

[HansMustermann]

Well, I definitely don't disagree that a majority of the anti-gay dudes bias is rooted in religious ideas in the West. That would be the core factor in the privilege of Western heteronormativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteronormativity).

I don't think referring to the factors that contribute to male privilege as "the patriarchy" is hyperbolic; I think the effect is still very real (though much progress has been made in the last 50 years) and possibly rooted in biology. Patriarchal societal structures probably provided a significant survival advantage for some ancestor species of ours.

And I still think the apparent increase in bisexual behaviors in women (usually young women) is rooted, in part at least, by a combination of revolt against religious oppression mixed with an innate desire of women to gain the approval of men.

Oh, the male advantages are very real. That wasn't the question.

The "arkhe" part of "patriarchy" is the hyperbole. But that was more to make a point on where we are vs where they were on the patriarchy scale, than the main point.

The point was that several actual patriarchies existed where homosexuality was tolerate, encouraged, or in a pretty peculiar tribe in the Pacific even mandatory. (How's that for a homosexual agenda?;)) Whereas in our watered-down sorta vaguely almost patriarchy, it isn't. So surely the "patriarchy" part can't be the common denominator or explanation there, IMHO.

[kellyb]

Oh, the male advantages are very real. That wasn't the question.

The "arkhe" part of "patriarchy" is the hyperbole. But that was more to make a point on where we are vs where they were on the patriarchy scale, than the main point.

The point was that several actual patriarchies existed where homosexuality was tolerate, encouraged, or in a pretty peculiar tribe in the Pacific even mandatory. (How's that for a homosexual agenda?;)) Whereas in our watered-down sorta vaguely almost patriarchy, it isn't. So surely the "patriarchy" part can't be the common denominator or explanation there, IMHO.

You're right, it isn't. It might sorta be the case when the political leaders are male Christians, though. In an indirect sort of way.
A patriarchal system (or any non-egalitarian system) can either promote or discriminate against homosexuality (or races, or gender, or whatever.) It's a basic "the folks with the most power can push their "ways" onto everyone else" phenomenon.

[jiggeryqua]

Speak English, man!

"There is no point after having sex you feel satisfied and are more interested in doing something else?" isn't the most elegant sentence I've ever encountered, but it doesn't take much, in context, to realise that it means:

"Is there no point after having sex [at which] you feel satisfied, and are more interested in doing something else?"

It might've helped if you'd remembered what [i]you'd just said, which was, essentially, "There is no point after having sex I feel satisfied and am more interested in doing something else". For the record, I don't believe you either...but it's the only common ground I have with Ivor...

[GreyICE]

You realise this is the internet, right? Where I can just go back and quote your argument? LOL!
Mr "Ah. I had a feeling the patriarchy would come into this eventually" and "Or is logic part of the patriarchy?" to "Err...what patriarchy?"

lol. It's a tad like a 9/11 truther. They say they're asking questions, but you know the thermite and space lasers are going to come out eventually.

It doesn't really mean that the towers were brought down with space lasers and thermite, it just means that some flavors of delusional worldview make themselves apparent.

Regarding military desensitization, you said:



...as though the PTSD mentioned in your link was the result of killing. Like that link about PTSD is evidence contradicting my evidence that the military does indeed desensitise soldiers to shooting at people. So let me follow your argument completely.

1) The military desensitizes people to shooting
2) This desensitization does nothing to prevent PTSD or any other psychological disorder that comes from being in a combat zone
3) They spend lots of time, effort, and money on this.

What is the motivation? We promote pure evil to 'General' in the US Military?

Or maybe, just maybe, the goal is to ensure that more soldiers survive combat and react sanely and sensibly, saving both soldiers and civilians?

I can't help thinking that your picture of a JCS meeting resembles Vader's council on the Death Star.

[tesscaline]

An article on disgust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/emotions/disgust.shtml

I think what you and others are forgetting is that we have other incentives and drives which modify our behaviour. For example, rotting food is disgusting when you have a full belly, but no so much when you are starving hungry. Ever noticed that after being sexually satisfied you are disinterested in having sex for a while? In fact what may have been sexually desirable beforehand becomes uninteresting or even unpleasant once in the resolution phase after orgasm.Still, the ongoing assumption that anal sexual activity has much of anything to do with poo, despite all the evidence provided to the contrary. Why are you so obsessed with fecal matter? Seriously?

And no, I've never become "disinterested" in sex. Too tired for more, sure, but not "disinterested." Also no, the things that were sexually desirable beforehand have never become uninteresting or unpleasant once sex is completed.

Sounds like you're projecting your own personal quirks and hang-ups onto everyone else.

[The Fallen Serpent]

The mind is willing but the flesh is weak.

Personally, I find that cliche to be a more accurate description of any post coital disinterist I may have. Even when I do become bored with an activity that is otherwise pleasurable, I do not then find it disgusting or off putting. I am willing to perform a rigorous scientific test on sex possibly being different though.

[Yoink]

Please explain the reason for the preponderance of slang terms used to refer to anal sex which also refer indirectly to poo/flatulence and/or gay men, and are often used pejoratively.

Here's a few off the top of my head:


Fudge packer
Driving the Hershey highway
Goin' to brown town
Marmite miner
Fartpuncher


So your argument is that the pejorative terms used by bigots must obviously be literally true. I take it that by the same token you would argue that it must be literally true that Jews kill Christian children and eat their flesh in secret rites, and that that's the reason they suffered social oppression in European society--not the other way around?

Look, the terms you list can be explained very easily: the world is full of tiny-minded little bigots who, for reasons having largely to do with a particular religious and cultural heritage, have a bizarre and irrational hatred of homosexuals. A large part of that religio-cultural taboo surrounding homosexuality has to do with anal sex ("lying with men as with a woman")--that 'category confusion' which is so often a focus of the various anathemas of the Old Testament laws (mixed fabrics, animals that don't fall nicely into the cloven-hoof/cud-chewing categories etc. etc.). Wanting to brand this action as "unclean," these tiny-minded bigots go looking for other things associated with cultural taboos to associate it with. Obviously 'poo' is not far to seek. So when it comes to homosexual anal sex they like to shriek "ewwwww poooooo" at the tops of their shrill little voices whenever the subject comes up.

Unfortunately for your original argument and for the honesty of these tiny-minded little bigots, Ivor, the fact that it is the hatred of homosexuals that leads to the association with poo (and not the other way around) is amply and sufficiently proven by the fact that no such universal "ewwwww pooooooo" rises up from the same people when it comes to heterosexual anal sex.

Your whole argument, Ivor, comes down to an insufficient understanding of the cultural component in "disgust." You need to think for a moment about Mary Douglas's famous definition of dirt as "matter out of place." There are numerous things involved in heterosexual sex which outside of that context we would regard as "disgusting." Imagine if I served you a hamburger that I'd spit on or ejaculated on or rubbed on my body. Any one of those images is immediately and viscerally "disgusting." But during normal, plain vanilla heterosexual sex, we happily swap bodily fluids that in any other context we might consider "disgusting" without any sensation of "disgust" at all.

Homophobes find the image of two men kissing "disgusting" (in some cases so profoundly so as to be rendered actually nauseous). Think of Hollywood's endless recourse to the "hilarious" scene of two men being somehow fooled into kissing each other and then suddenly realizing what is happening and leaping up and spitting and rubbing their mouths and washing them out etc. etc. It's all just a matter of cultural context. Of what we regard as "out of place" or not. You desperately want to believe that there is some innate limit that anal sex transgresses; that we have some inherent, precultural taboo that makes anal sex seem "disgusting" no matter what the circumstances. But the claim is A) demonstrably untrue and B) nonsensical. If we DID have such a precultural, innate "disgust" with anal sex then the vast majority of gay men would never engage in it. There's no reason that gay men have to have anal sex. They can be just as "gay" without having anal sex. And guess what: tiny-minded bigots can get just as upset and "disgusted" about men being "**********s" (no matter how much they like the idea of women performing that role) as they can about men being "fudgepackers."

Once again, Ivor, you're just flagrantly and demonstrably wrong.

Q.E. ****** D.

[Marduk]

Other than people who might come into intimate contact with your or your partners’ bodily fluids, why do you think anyone who has not shown interest in the subject wants to know how you or your partners express yourselves sexually?

1. fecal matter is not a bodily fluid, would you like to discuss what I do with bodily fluids now ?
2. Anyone posting in this thread is showing an interest
3. Its on topic in this thread, you bought up the matter earlier, got memory issues now ?
:D

I think you want to believe you shock or disgust people like me who you probably consider to be uptight, but rather than feeling shocked or disgusted what I’m actually thinking is why are you so needy for such a reaction?

I really don't care about what people like you think, didn't you notice neither does anyone else unless theyve been telling you that what you think is wrong. Your claim for instance that after having sex you dont want it anymore because you are satisfied marks you out as someone that no woman in their right mind would want to sleep with, sex isn't about your satisfaction Ivor, its about what you can do to satisfy your partner. Of course I am doing this for a reaction, but the reaction I am doing it for is orgasmic, or in other words I am actually like this in real life too, I havent just invented a personality for your amusement, but I do have a vacancy for a Gimp, let me know if youre interested
:D


perhaps you'd like me to talk about my penis instead, its just been nominated for an award
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166625
has yours ?
:p

[Yoink]

I think you want to believe you shock or disgust people like me who you probably consider to be uptight, but rather than feeling shocked or disgusted what I’m actually thinking is why are you so needy for such a reaction?

Weren't you the one claiming that the "disgust" was innate? Now you seem to be saying that not even you, personally, feel this disgust. Apparently now there's only one person in this entire thread who actually does feel disgust at the thought of anal sex--and that person isn't a homophobe.

It's not looking very good for your theory, Ivor.

[The Fallen Serpent]

Yay I'm a beautiful and unique flower!

[Marduk]

Yay I'm a beautiful and unique flower!

I can't say I'm completely shocked, but are you an Orchid or a Triffid
:D

[Bill Thompson]

How much is all this just culture?

Weren't all Roman and Greek politicians bisexual in ancient times and it was just considered the way to be?

[The Fallen Serpent]

Triffids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffid) are awesome! I was not familiar with them.

[Marduk]

Triffids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffid) are awesome! I was not familiar with them.

thats probably why youre still here
:p

[epeos76]

eh, the main difference is simply that female-female relationships are far more acceptable, at least in western society, than male-male. We all know that to many of we males, two women together is hot. Two men together is icky.

I wonder how far back that double standard goes? The Old Testament says a man lying with a man is an abomination, but unless I'm mistaken doesn't have much to say about women lying together. hmm.... :p

College co-eds reproducing porn-like scenarios are more acceptable. I'm not so sure serious lesbian relationships are more widely accepted. I know I see far fewer gay women than gay men on T.V.

[Alan]

Of course, this should be taken into account with the previously mentioned studies on the sexual identity demographics of teenagers:
Perhaps surprisingly, but consistent with previous studies, the majority of teens with same-sex sexual attraction or experience considered themselves to be heterosexual.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205122240.htm

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kellyb, it seems to me that "the patriarchy" is semantically indistinguishable from "the man" or "the system" as you are using it. It's just a catch-all perjorative term for the social status quo.

As such I think it's less that useful as an intellectual term, since it's seems to me virtually certain that it leads you to blame patriarchy for social ills that have nothing whatsoever to do with male privilege in relationship to women.

We could get rid of sexism entirely and I'm sure we'd still have racism, classism and all sorts of other ugly human behaviours to worry about. Lumping it all together as 'the patriarchy" is a step away from solving these problems, not a step towards solving them.

[Marduk]

“Once you label me, you negate me”.
Soren Kierkegaard

[arthwollipot]

And no, I've never become "disinterested" in sex. Too tired for more, sure, but not "disinterested." Also no, the things that were sexually desirable beforehand have never become uninteresting or unpleasant once sex is completed.This.

[Alan]

I have experienced it where something that seemed like a good idea at the time ended up seeming like a bad idea once I was done, in that fashion.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Still, the ongoing assumption that anal sexual activity has much of anything to do with poo, despite all the evidence provided to the contrary. Why are you so obsessed with fecal matter? Seriously?

What concepts and functions do you associate with the human anus/rectum?

What proportion of them do you consider pleasant?

And no, I've never become "disinterested" in sex. Too tired for more, sure, but not "disinterested." Also no, the things that were sexually desirable beforehand have never become uninteresting or unpleasant once sex is completed.

Sounds like you're projecting your own personal quirks and hang-ups onto everyone else.

So your level of desire (though not ability) for any particular sexual activity remains unwaveringly constant pre and post orgasm? You're always 'in the mood' and all your partner needs to do is give you a little rest and you're up for sex again?

I'm amazed you have any time free to post on the forum.

[arthwollipot]

So your level of desire (though not ability) for any particular sexual activity remains unwaveringly constant pre and post orgasm? You're always 'in the mood' and all your partner needs to do is give you a little rest and you're up for sex again?

I'm amazed you have any time free to post on the forum.Pretty much, yeah. The opportunity is not always there, but the enthusiasm is.

[Ivor the Engineer]

So your argument is that the pejorative terms used by bigots must obviously be literally true.

<snip>

No, but I think I now know why you don't understand my idea and are offended by it.

Edited, breach of Rule 12 removed. .

[Cynic]

Pretty much, yeah. The opportunity is not always there, but the enthusiasm is.


That sounds like hell to me. I'm rarely interested in sex. It's probably biological, I suppose. But in my experience people who say they're up for sex 24/7 to the exclusion of anything they might feel is more interesting at the time unless too tired or without opportunity are either a biological anomaly (like me) or lying.

I'd suggest that such extremes as ours are poor examples to base a general theory on, regardless of how much the resulting theory might conflict with our personal experience. While I haven't studied the entire thread to deconstruct the reaction to Ivor in general, I've been a bit alarmed to hear that his description of post-coital let-down has been so roundly dismissed as nonsense when it's exactly what I experience, even -- if not especially -- after masturbation. It's how most people are wired.

[Marduk]

That sounds like hell to me. I'm rarely interested in sex. It's probably biological, I suppose. But in my experience people who say they're up for sex 24/7 to the exclusion of anything they might feel is more interesting at the time unless too tired or without opportunity are either a biological anomaly (like me) or lying.

Umm, no, its not abnormal to want loads of sex
The threshold for what constitutes hypersexuality is subject to debate, and critics question whether a standardized diagnostic threshold even exists. Sex drive varies widely in humans; what one person would regard as a normal sex drive might be deemed to be excessive by some and low by others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality
this disorder used to be known as Nymphomania, thesedays its so common its not even a disorder. I have friends who make me look like a saint, and compared to the average I am overactive

perhaps you'd need to express how often you require sex before you can decide where people stand in relation to you. I'm most happy myself with daily intercourse but admit that I have several partners
;)

making claims like "its how most people are wired" therefore just reflects how you are wired, its not applicable to anyone else but I can understand why it makes you comfortable to think that

[Ivor the Engineer]

Umm, no, its not abnormal to want loads of sex

<snip>

You can't help but demonstrate your ignorance, can you?

It's not abnormal for the score on two dice to equal two or twelve either, but more often it is seven.

[tesscaline]

What concepts and functions do you associate with the human anus/rectum?

What proportion of them do you consider pleasant?And that's relevant to you thinking that anal sex involves feces how?

So your level of desire (though not ability) for any particular sexual activity remains unwaveringly constant pre and post orgasm? You're always 'in the mood' and all your partner needs to do is give you a little rest and you're up for sex again?

I'm amazed you have any time free to post on the forum.Arth summed it up fairly well:

Pretty much, yeah. The opportunity is not always there, but the enthusiasm is.

I would only add that the enthusiasm may wax and wane a bit, but never to the point of total disinterest, or to the point of finding sexual activity "uninteresting" or "unpleasant".

That sounds like hell to me. I'm rarely interested in sex. It's probably biological, I suppose. But in my experience people who say they're up for sex 24/7 to the exclusion of anything they might feel is more interesting at the time unless too tired or without opportunity are either a biological anomaly (like me) or lying.This characterization isn't exactly fair. I did not say that there weren't things in life that were more important than sex, or that at times other things weren't more interesting. What I did say was that I do not become disinterested in various aspects of sexual activity just because I'd just gotten laid 3 minutes prior, and that I do not find those sexual activities uninteresting or unpleasant when not actually performing them. That being clarified:

Please don't put forth offensive false dichotomies about persons like myself being "biological anomalies" or lying. You're doing exactly what you claim below to be alarmed by -- roundly dismissing something as nonsense when it's exactly what some people experience.

I'd suggest that such extremes as ours are poor examples to base a general theory on, regardless of how much the resulting theory might conflict with our personal experience. While I haven't studied the entire thread to deconstruct the reaction to Ivor in general, I've been a bit alarmed to hear that his description of post-coital let-down has been so roundly dismissed as nonsense when it's exactly what I experience, even -- if not especially -- after masturbation. It's how most people are wired.See... You might want to actually read the things that Ivor is saying. Seems to me that he was attempting to use what you're considering "post-coital let down" to justify his "society is less accepting of homosexual males because of all the poo involved" nonsense.

Personally, I'm not dismissing "post-coital let down". I'm not even sure that's actually what's being discussed (I'm used to post-coital let down referring to a lull after sex, or perhaps a slightly sad feeling, not disgust or "unpleasant" feelings about what you've just done). All I've said is that I don't experience it. I am, however, dismissing "post-coital let down" as evidence to support Ivor's really screwed up arguments.

[Marduk]

You can't help but demonstrate your ignorance, can you?

It's not abnormal for the score on two dice to equal two or twelve either, but more often it is seven.

Its not my fault youre *************** Ivor,

Breach of Rule 12 removed.

[Yoink]

No, but I think I now know why you don't understand my idea and are offended by it.

Moderated content removed.

Awwww. Poor widdle Ivor. Someone destroyed his pathetic widdle argument and now he's in a huffy puffy wuffy.

Sounds like someone needs a hug--except for the "gay panic" that would presumably ensue.

(Oh, and P.S.--I'm sorry but that was literally your argument: that because homophobes like to associate gay sex with poo then it must be literally true. That is perfectly isomorphic with the claim that because antisemites accuse Jews of child-murder it must literally be true. It's really not my fault that you made an asinine argument, Ivor).

[fuelair]

This characterization isn't exactly fair. I did not say that there weren't things in life that were more important than sex, or that at times other things weren't more interesting. What I did say was that I do not become disinterested in various aspects of sexual activity just because I'd just gotten laid 3 minutes prior, and that I do not find those sexual activities uninteresting or unpleasant when not actually performing them. That being clarified:

Please don't put forth offensive false dichotomies about persons like myself being "biological anomalies" or lying. You're doing exactly what you claim below to be alarmed by -- roundly dismissing something as nonsense when it's exactly what some people experience.

.Unfortunately, there are people who assume you are lying or badly mistaken if your opinion or knowledge or response (etc.) in any area does not match theirs. Oddly, there is a term for this: ignorance (or stupidity - if it cannot be fixed):)

[JFrankA]

How in the name of Zarquon's Singing Fish did I miss this thread???? Sorry I came to the party late.
This thread has nearly everything: bi-sexual women, lesbians, homosexual men, (no bi-sexual men??? No oral sex????) porn, war, 9/11, anal sex, and Ivor being.....................Ivor (*gives Ivor a big hug*)

Hey Ivor, let me ask you something. (Not safe for work below):
I was never ever ever into anal sex at all. That is until my present girlfriend told me she likes to be on the receiving end of anal sex. Now I enjoy...giving her what she wants. Does that make me homosexual?
:D (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

In answer to the question put about two men making out, to be honest, I'd react exactly the same way to two men making out as I would to a heterosexual couple I find unattractive and even a female homosexual couple I find unattractive. It's not so much that it involves homosexual men, it's simply because I'm not attracted to parties involved.

I have to agree with whoever said that people put themselves into the scenario that they are seeing. In the case of sexual scenarios. After all, one doesn't watch a porno of a sexual act of something one isn't into.

ETA: You can count me in on one of those people who doesn't become "disinterested" in sex even after I am "satisfied".... (*waves at SkeptiChick*)

[Alan]

How in the name of Zarquon's Singing Fish did I miss this thread???? Sorry I came to the party late.
This thread has nearly everything: bi-sexual women, lesbians, homosexual men, (no bi-sexual men??? No oral sex????) porn, war, 9/11, anal sex, and Ivor being.....................Ivor (*gives Ivor a big hug*)
This thread does involve discussions of bisexual men and oral sex.

Also, the hyphenated spelling (such as in this thread title) is strange. It's not important, but people sometimes write "bi-sexual" when they don't also write "hetero-sexual" or "homo-sexual". I don't want to derail the thread but I've been wanting to mention it.
http://www.bimedia.org/213/hyphen-watch
At least it's not as bad as some people treating "bi" like an acronym and capitalising it wherever it appears.

[KingMerv00]

Hey Ivor, let me ask you something. (Not safe for work below):
I was never ever ever into anal sex at all. That is until my present girlfriend told me she likes to be on the receiving end of anal sex. Now I enjoy...giving her what she wants. Does that make me homosexual?

No, it means you used to hate gay people and now you don't.

[fuelair]

How in the name of Zarquon's Singing Fish did I miss this thread???? Sorry I came to the party late.
This thread has nearly everything: bi-sexual women, lesbians, homosexual men, (no bi-sexual men??? No oral sex????) porn, war, 9/11, anal sex, and Ivor being.....................Ivor (*gives Ivor a big hug*)

Hey Ivor, let me ask you something. (Not safe for work below):
I was never ever ever into anal sex at all. That is until my present girlfriend told me she likes to be on the receiving end of anal sex. Now I enjoy...giving her what she wants. Does that make me homosexual?
:D (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)


I have to agree with whoever said that people put themselves into the scenario that they are seeing. In the case of sexual scenarios. After all, one doesn't watch a porno of a sexual act of something one isn't into.

".... (*waves at SkeptiChick*) Some do - I have been researching the field (as I have said before I have many interests) and have spent money for materials in which I have no personal interest for research purposes- i.e. I have watched them (and showed some of them to groups - mostly at SF cons) and developed a cataloging system for them. [fetishes - because they can be quite specific - formed the biggest part by far of the system. Per ex: Infantilism was not sourced through any of the sources I had so I was unaware of it for a number of years - even real studies of the field had no mention of that particular offshoot in the field] The good news is thanks to the internet I do not have to spend money on it now - and I have found a LOT of complete films I could not locate earlier on the net.:)

[JFrankA]

This thread does involve discussions of bisexual men and oral sex.

Also, the hyphenated spelling (such as in this thread title) is strange. It's not important, but people sometimes write "bi-sexual" when they don't also write "hetero-sexual" or "homo-sexual". I don't want to derail the thread but I've been wanting to mention it.
http://www.bimedia.org/213/hyphen-watch
At least it's not as bad as some people treating "bi" like an acronym and capitalising it wherever it appears.

My apologies, I meant no disrespect. I don't have a clue why I spelled it like that.

I have to admit I didn't fully read the thread, although I didn't skim it either. I'm sorry I missed the bisexual men and I'm REALLY sorry I missed the oral sex!!!! :)

[JFrankA]

No, it means you used to hate gay people and now you don't.

Ooooooooooh......

That makes sense.......


....in an Ivor sort of way... :)

[tesscaline]

How in the name of Zarquon's Singing Fish did I miss this thread???? Sorry I came to the party late.
This thread has nearly everything: bi-sexual women, lesbians, homosexual men, (no bi-sexual men??? No oral sex????) porn, war, 9/11, anal sex, and Ivor being.....................Ivor (*gives Ivor a big hug*)Well, there was a little discussion of oral sex and bisexual men, but not nearly as much as the "ewwww! poo!" topic.

I have to agree with whoever said that people put themselves into the scenario that they are seeing. In the case of sexual scenarios. After all, one doesn't watch a porno of a sexual act of something one isn't into.I dunno about that. I've been known to watch porn of things that I'm not into (yet?) simply to find out what they are, and what they entail. I've also watched porn that was categorized incorrectly and ended up not being what I expected, and not what I'm into.

I'd agree that most people do "put themselves into" the scenario that they're watching. But I'd add the caveat that this isn't always the case, and as humans we can actually choose whether nor not to do that.

ETA: You can count me in on one of those people who doesn't become "disinterested" in sex even after I am "satisfied".... (*waves at SkeptiChick*)Hehe. I rather thought that's how you'd respond. I was actually wondering why you hadn't shown up in thread yet, given the subject matter. Glad you made it :)

*waves back*

Some do - I have been researching the field (as I have said before I have many interests) and have spent money for materials in which I have no personal interest for research purposes- i.e. I have watched them (and showed some of them to groups - mostly at SF cons) and developed a cataloging system for them. [fetishes - because they can be quite specific - formed the biggest part by far of the system. Per ex: Infantilism was not sourced through any of the sources I had so I was unaware of it for a number of years - even real studies of the field had no mention of that particular offshoot in the field] The good news is thanks to the internet I do not have to spend money on it now - and I have found a LOT of complete films I could not locate earlier on the net.:)Indeed, pornography can be a remarkable anthropological research tool, as well as educational material of other sorts as well. I'm glad the net has made it all more accessible to people :)

[JFrankA]

Some do - I have been researching the field (as I have said before I have many interests) and have spent money for materials in which I have no personal interest for research purposes- i.e. I have watched them (and showed some of them to groups - mostly at SF cons) and developed a cataloging system for them. [fetishes - because they can be quite specific - formed the biggest part by far of the system. Per ex: Infantilism was not sourced through any of the sources I had so I was unaware of it for a number of years - even real studies of the field had no mention of that particular offshoot in the field] The good news is thanks to the internet I do not have to spend money on it now - and I have found a LOT of complete films I could not locate earlier on the net.:)

True, some do, as in your case. I produce porno that involves a very specific fetish. (Though I am on hiatus from doing it until my living conditions get settled). And as a general "rule of thumb", people who aren't attracted to the type of porno I produce, or even the models that are performing in the porno wouldn't buy it.

ETA: and what SkeptiChick said, true too. Sometimes I look at some porno the same way. Sorry, I didn't mean my statement to sound so "end-all-be-all". Perhaps I should've said for the most part, or something like that...

...Good to be here, SkeptiChick. Where do I put my coat and where's the bar? :D

[Marduk]

True, some do, as in your case. I produce porno that involves a very specific fetish.

hhmmmm lets all play guess the Fetish
:D

errr
is it dollification ?
:confused:

[Maia]

hhmmmm lets all play guess the Fetish
:D

errr
is it dollification ?
:confused:

All I can say about this site (http://www.stairporn.org/)
is that the world is a strange, strange place. ;)

[Alan]

My apologies, I meant no disrespect.
It wasn't interpreted as being disrespectful on any level either. :)

[tesscaline]

True, some do, as in your case. I produce porno that involves a very specific fetish. (Though I am on hiatus from doing it until my living conditions get settled). And as a general "rule of thumb", people who aren't attracted to the type of porno I produce, or even the models that are performing in the porno wouldn't buy it.

ETA: and what SkeptiChick said, true too. Sometimes I look at some porno the same way. Sorry, I didn't mean my statement to sound so "end-all-be-all". Perhaps I should've said for the most part, or something like that...No worries. I'm constantly sticking in qualifiers to avoid that exact same situation :) Learning experiences all around :)

...Good to be here, SkeptiChick. Where do I put my coat and where's the bar? :DSilly boy. You walked right past the cute hat check girl without even noticing her! Bar's to your left. It's wide open, all drinks on the house :)

hhmmmm lets all play guess the Fetish
:D

errr
is it dollification ?
:confused:Wouldn't be fair of me to guess, since J and I end up in a lot of the same threads together and as such I've got a bit of inside information :)

[Alan]

This was published a few hours ago:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201002/ewwwanal-sex-is-icky
In the first study, male and female participants (235) were assigned to read a description of gay men having anal sex. Overall, participants showed greater disgust towards the male who was penetrated (bottom) than the male who was the penetrator (top). In addition to sexual position, participants read a description of the gay male that was stereotypically feminine or masculine. When the description matched the sexual position stereotype (e.g., feminine male on the bottom), males higher in initial anti-gay prejudice had more disgust (compared to those low in prejudice). However, when there wasn't a match (e.g., a masculine male on the bottom), disgust was equally high regardless of prior attitudes toward homsexuals.

In a follow up study, we assessed attitudes toward anal sex based on the gender of those having sex. [...] Results indicated that males had more disgust when it was performed by two men than a man and a woman.

However, and interestingly, women found gay male anal sex just as disgusting as heterosexual anal sex. BUT, men did not find heterosexual anal sex disgusting overall, and found it less disgusting than women.
So, according to this, it looks like concepts of gender play a part in perception of disgust regarding anal sex. Of course regular scientific skepticism and everything should be exercised with it.

[tesscaline]

This was published a few hours ago:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201002/ewwwanal-sex-is-icky

So, according to this, it looks like concepts of gender play a part in perception of disgust regarding anal sex. Of course regular scientific skepticism and everything should be exercised with it.An interesting overview, though I do wish I could read the actual study.

[Alan]

Me too. I couldn't find either of the studies.

[arthwollipot]

That sounds like hell to me. I'm rarely interested in sex. It's probably biological, I suppose. But in my experience people who say they're up for sex 24/7 to the exclusion of anything they might feel is more interesting at the time unless too tired or without opportunity are either a biological anomaly (like me) or lying.Whoever said anything about to the exclusion of anything?

[Ivor the Engineer]

And that's relevant to you thinking that anal sex involves feces how?

<snip>

Whether in reality anal sex involves feces is pretty unimportant to my hypothesis. All my hypothesis requires is that when a person thinks about homosexual men (CS) this activates up the concept of anal sex, which because of people's experience of what is contained in and excreted from the human anus, brings up the concept of feces (US), which results in the person feeling the negative emotion of disgust (UR). This pairing of the idea of homosexual men with the emotion of disgust produces a conditioned response (CR) of a dislike of homosexual men.

In the case of heterosexual porn which includes scenes of anal sex not involving feces, the conditioning works the other way. The concept of anal sex (CS) predicts feeling sexual pleasure (UR) caused by the sight of sexy men/women and oral and vaginal heterosexual sex (US). This produces a conditioned response (CR) of pleasure associated with anal sex.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that there has been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex amongst heterosexual couples along with greater tolerance of homosexual men and the rise in anal sex in heterosexual porn?

I would only add that the enthusiasm may wax and wane a bit, but never to the point of total disinterest, or to the point of finding sexual activity "uninteresting" or "unpleasant".

<snip>

Right. So you're disagreement is merely with your interpretation of how you believe I am using of the word 'uninteresting'. Presumably you have hobbies other than sex. I would say sex is uninteresting to you at a particular moment when you have a choice of feeling sexual pleasure or engaging in some other activity and you choose the latter. Are you saying you have never chosen to engage in some other activity you find pleasurable when experiencing sexual pleasure was also an option? If so, and assuming you are 'into' porn, why do you ever visit and post on this forum when you could be watching porn and/or masturbating instead?

[GreyICE]

Can anyone explain the two letter abbreviations floating through Ivor's post? I admit to losing track of what he was saying trying to interpret them.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Can anyone explain the two letter abbreviations floating through Ivor's post? I admit to losing track of what he was saying trying to interpret them.

US = Unconditioned Stimulus

UR = Unconditioned Response

CS = Conditioned Simulus

CR = Conditioned Response

[tesscaline]

Can anyone explain the two letter abbreviations floating through Ivor's post? I admit to losing track of what he was saying trying to interpret them.I have no idea what they are.

Edit: Even after his explanation as to what they are, I fail to see why the heck they've been included in such a way, and I don't necessarily agree with what their inclusion implies.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have no idea what they are.

Edit: Even after his explanation as to what they are, I fail to see why the heck they've been included in such a way, and I don't necessarily agree with what their inclusion implies.

To explain how phobias (in this case homophobia) can be induced by classical conditioning.

[tesscaline]

Whether in reality anal sex involves feces is pretty unimportant to my hypothesis. All my hypothesis requires is that when a person thinks about homosexual men (CS) this activates up the concept of anal sex, which because of people's experience of what is contained in and excreted from the human anus, brings up the concept of feces (US), which results in the person feeling the negative emotion of disgust (UR). This pairing of the idea of homosexual men with the emotion of disgust produces a conditioned response (CR) of a dislike of homosexual men.

In the case of heterosexual porn which includes scenes of anal sex not involving feces, the conditioning works the other way. The concept of anal sex (CS) predicts feeling sexual pleasure (UR) caused by the sight of sexy men/women and oral and vaginal heterosexual sex (US). This produces a conditioned response (CR) of pleasure associated with anal sex.Seems to me you have your US, CS, UR, and CR all in the wrong places. So much so that your statement doesn't even make sense.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that there has been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex amongst heterosexual couples along with greater tolerance of homosexual men and the rise in anal sex in heterosexual porn?Evidence that there's been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex between heterosexual couples? Evidence that there has been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex in porn?

Right. So you're disagreement is merely with your interpretation of how you believe I am using of the word 'uninteresting'. Presumably you have hobbies other than sex. I would say sex is uninteresting to you at a particular moment when you have a choice of feeling sexual pleasure or engaging in some other activity and you choose the latter. Are you saying you have never chosen to engage in some other activity you find pleasurable when experiencing sexual pleasure was also an option? If so, and assuming you are 'into' porn, why do you ever visit and post on this forum when you could be watching porn and/or masturbating instead?You would say wrong. You're also using a false dichotomy. The choice is not "be interested in sex or be interested in something else". It is possible to be interested in sex and be more interested in something else at the same time. It is possible to be equally interested in two things at the same time. It is even possible to be interested in 5 or 6 things at the same time. Just because I'm interested in one thing does not mean that I automatically stop being interested in another.

As to your other questions... Well, one has been answered already (if you bothered to actually READ posts you'd know that), and the other is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother.

[tesscaline]

To explain how phobias (in this case homophobia) can be induced by classical conditioning.Fear and disgust are two different things. Which is it that you're attempting to prove again?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Seems to me you have your US, CS, UR, and CR all in the wrong places. So much so that your statement doesn't even make sense.

There is another reason it might make not make sense to you.

Evidence that there's been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex between heterosexual couples?

In the CDC report I linked to earlier.

Evidence that there has been a rise in the prevalence of anal sex in porn?

Ask JFrankA.

You would say wrong. You're also using a false dichotomy. The choice is not "be interested in sex or be interested in something else". It is possible to be interested in sex and be more interested in something else at the same time. It is possible to be equally interested in two things at the same time. It is even possible to be interested in 5 or 6 things at the same time. Just because I'm interested in one thing does not mean that I automatically stop being interested in another.

:boggled:

As to your other questions... Well, one has been answered already (if you bothered to actually READ posts you'd know that), and the other is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to bother.

Ok.

[tesscaline]

In the CDC report I linked to earlier.Please provide a quotation. I am not digging through a 56 page report to try and find what you are referring to.

Ask JFrankA.As much as I may admire and respect JFrankA, there's no way that he could possibly give an objective view over whether or not there has been a marked increase in the percentage of all porn that happens to involve anal sex. It's something that one would have to do a comprehensive study of over the course of many years, and even have to delve into historical records to learn about. Do you have access to any such research? If not, maybe you might want to revise your statement.

:boggled:Yeah, its amazing. I can be interested in more than one thing at a time! A lot of other people can too! Shocking, isn't it? :rolleyes:

[fuelair]

An interesting overview, though I do wish I could read the actual study.

One of the reasons I look at PToday but do not keep it in any sort of priority position in research in the field or the reporting of same.

[fuelair]

Of course, this should be taken into account with the previously mentioned studies on the sexual identity demographics of teenagers:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100205122240.htm

referring to the quote thar disappears in quoting you. In the Army I knew of soldiers in my unit who would get BJs from other male soldiers . Uniformly they looked down (hah-hah:)) on the performers (bottoms in semi-current terms) as gay, but firmly resisted being seen as gay themselves - popularized in these threads by the data on Afghans who use boys.

[fuelair]

“Once you label me, you negate me”.
Soren Kierkegaard

Once I label you, it helps me know you - but then my labels may either be very complex (xtian, but cool about it, science oriented, interesting to talk to especially about anime and WWII Aricraft and battle techniques.....) or quite simple ([friend] [rectum] [needs to be dead rectum] etc.).

[GreyICE]

Once I label you, it helps me know you - but then my labels may either be very complex (xtian, but cool about it, science oriented, interesting to talk to especially about anime and WWII Aricraft and battle techniques.....) or quite simple ([friend] [rectum] [needs to be dead rectum] etc.).

----------------------->[point]




[you]

[fuelair]

----------------------->[point]




[you]

{getting} {boring}:D

[ponderingturtle]

This was published a few hours ago:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/201002/ewwwanal-sex-is-icky

So, according to this, it looks like concepts of gender play a part in perception of disgust regarding anal sex. Of course regular scientific skepticism and everything should be exercised with it.

Hmm, I wonder if they included pegging that study.

[ponderingturtle]

To explain how phobias (in this case homophobia) can be induced by classical conditioning.

You know homophobia isn't really a phobia like say being afriad of hights or snakes?

[Ivor the Engineer]

You know homophobia isn't really a phobia like say being afriad of hights or snakes?

Yes. It was sloppy usage of the term. Sorry.

[Dorian Gray]

what is this 'bisexuality' in women? Are there pictures? In the interest of science.

[The Fallen Serpent]

what is this 'bisexuality' in women? Are there pictures? In the interest of science.

Yes. All over the internet. Video too.

[fuelair]

Yes. All over the internet. Video too.

Try Amazon - they have a lot of it for sale - and it comes to your house in a plain brown box!!:):)