PDA

View Full Version : Bi-sexuality in women?


Pages : [1] 2

Thunder
1st February 2010, 08:32 AM
In the last decade there seems to be a marked increase in the number of women and girls who consider themselves to be "bi-sexual" or even "lesbian".

Even in high school.

Now, while I accept that lesbianism is real, and many women do indeed feel no sexual attraction to the male body and instead feel one towards fellow women, it seems to be that the growth in female bi-sexuality is less an issue of women coming out of the closet and expressing their long suppressed feelings, and more an issue of women's particular biology and social mindset.

Women, are MUCH more social with each other then men. They support each other, very emotionally. They seek advice from each other, they comfort each other. They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Men are a much more independent creature, for whatever hunter/gatherer reasons, and women are clearly more of a group biology.

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?"

I can see it. I really can. How about you?

GreyICE
1st February 2010, 08:40 AM
Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

There's just a double standard when it comes to discussing it in public.

Also, teenager = bundle of hormones.

I'd say there's a good number of Daddy's money lesbians, or LUGs in college, but I can't really pin down why (also, "I'm a lesbian, but I keep sleeping with men!" which I chalk up to some people seriously straining credibility on actually being sentient organisms).

barrymore
1st February 2010, 08:47 AM
OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 08:50 AM
So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.
A very far leap, if you ask me. One that I've never taken, and one that I'll never take. Because I'm just not sexually attracted to women.

How far a leap is it for men hanging around together, playing aggressive sports, and getting all sweaty with each other to kissing and touching sexually?

Adam Ferguson
1st February 2010, 08:53 AM
They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Interesting thesis, now visit a Brazillian Jiu-Jitsu club and see if you feel the same!

Rasmus
1st February 2010, 08:53 AM
OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

Exactly!


That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct!

No, wait .... :duck:

GreyICE
1st February 2010, 08:58 AM
OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?'

CatInTheBag
1st February 2010, 09:00 AM
OK, but when big bad natural selection comes home to roost, how would they have a.) protected and fed themselves in a hunter/gatherer world? and b.) reproduce?

I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction? I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize. Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping.

BenBurch
1st February 2010, 09:33 AM
Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men.

It's just still taboo.

Probably always will be.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 09:35 AM
I will give you that in today's society, lesbians can get on with the protection and feeding part. But what about reproduction?

I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it......:rolleyes:

I think the latter point addresses both the genealogical and social argument for homosexuality. Lesbians will not be able to pass their genes on to offspring, nor will generational knowledge/feelings be transferred across kin, unless they go out and proselytize.
Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually.


Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives......

GreyICE
1st February 2010, 09:37 AM
Kinsey said that bisexuality was just about as common in men.

It's just still taboo.

Probably always will be.

Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap.

The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense. His idea that the population was distributed into each category on a kind of a bell curve because he liked that idea was terrible.

ETA: seriously, not all statistical findings result in bell curves...

BenBurch
1st February 2010, 09:39 AM
Kinsey was full of crap. It was groundbreaking crap that asked questions that no one had ever asked before, but it was still crap.

The Kinsey scale is serious woo-woo. His guesses as to where people fall into that spectrum are a tad, um... nonsense.

More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

GreyICE
1st February 2010, 09:45 AM
More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

Oh come on. His guess was that 10% were purely het (0) and 10% were totally homo (6), and the rest were somewhere in the middle.

It hurts just to think about.

Seriously, find me some decent number of studies that back this idea up, somehow, somewhere.

I admit that his idea of sexuality as fluid was groundbreaking, but his charts and numbers were very... um... innovative.

barrymore
1st February 2010, 10:21 AM
Exactly!

That's why colony forming insects like ants or bees are all but extinct!

No, wait .... :duck:

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?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Really, does this nonsense have to come up every time anyone says the word 'homosexuality?'

I share your disdain for those who rail against homosexuality. Fortunately, that was not the purpose of my argument.

Because never, in all of history, have same sex couples had children, be it through surrogacy, artificial insemination, or just plain old ugly bumping.

I am not interested in whether it happens or not. Of course, it does!

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).

If you do not agree, please explain so that we can both understand better.

I know a lot of lesbians who've managed to reproduce. Actual biological offspring! It's amazing. However did they do it......:rolleyes:


I was addressing homosexuality from a genealogical perspective. Some say that people are born gay and that it is "found" in the genes. I do not know--I am not arguing for or against either perspective. But if it is genealogical, any reproduction methods are going to affect the concentration of these genes, most likely in an adverse fashion.


Lesbians have managed to pass their genes on to offspring just fine, when they so choose. I don't understand the bit about passing on their knowledge or feelings (aside: how does one pass on feelings, and why would that even be important?) to kin, unless they proselytize. Somehow, proselytizing and kin just don't mix. I talk to my kin. It's actually socially acceptable to talk with one's kin on a regular basis. Preferable, actually.


I was referring to the flip-side of the homosexuality argument in this case: namely, that it arises from environmental and social factors. If homosexuals have less children than opposite-sex couples, it seems to me that environmental and social factors would be in favor of heterosexuality versus homosexuality, and given enough time, the world would become almost completely heterosexual. Again, this is IF the environmental/social explanation of sexuality is valid, which I am not arguing for or against.

Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality). Proselytize may have been too strong of word--I was certainly not implying that legions of homosexual people are going out to try and convert heterosexuals (as we all know, the opposite is true).



Oh wait. I'm guessing you think proselytizing is one step in the whole recruiting process that I've heard so much about, just never from actual gay men and women who are too busy living decent lives......

Get that crap out of here.


I know this is a sensitive subject, but understand that I am trying to have a rather objective discussion about it. I do not use the terms "homosexual", "gay", "lesbian" in any derisive or superficial manner whatsoever, any more than calling someone a heterosexual merely means they have relationships with people of the opposite sex. It's a definition, not a pigeon-hole.

patrick767
1st February 2010, 10:22 AM
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

Jorghnassen
1st February 2010, 10:26 AM
Ah, societal norms. Let me put it in laymen's terms: girl-on-girl action is hot, while a boy who has any sexual attraction to is own gender is gay (doesn't matter if he's also attracted to girls, trucks, guns, shoes, dead animals, or doorknobs...). Or something to that effect. Essentially, guys don't have as much leeway in their choice of sexuality, activities or occupation without catching teh ghey from the point of view of others.

Jorghnassen
1st February 2010, 10:30 AM
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

If I recall correctly, the standard ancient concept of reproduction is that women only serve as a receptacle for men's seed. Thus man-on-man action is wasting sacred sperm in vain (thus God gets quite irate), while women together, well, they're just lying together. Nothing sacred is wasted.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 10:42 AM
Based on that, I say that if natural societal factors are against homosexuality in an evolutionary sense, then the only way to fend for itself would be to actively discuss sexuality and encourage people to think about sexuality outside of the status quo (the SQ being heterosexuality).
Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples. And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together.

When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease?

You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 10:45 AM
So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?"

I can see it. I really can. How about you?

How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action?

And what exactly goes on at all those mens only clubs and gyms? Hmmmm.....I can picture it. I really can. How about you?

;)

Ziggurat
1st February 2010, 10:47 AM
Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

No, that's just the British.
un__imwE3vg

barrymore
1st February 2010, 11:24 AM
Homosexuality doesn't have to "fend for itself." The vast vast majority of homosexuals are born to heterosexual couples.

Everything has to fend for itself in an evolutionary sense. ceteris paribus, if something is even marginally less conducive to reproduction than something else, then it will lose out. That is what I am saying. There is no moralizing involved here. I only refer to homosexuality because that is what was presented originally; we could easily talk about sexuality in general as it relates to evolution, and I would get on all the same.

And toward what end would anybody want to "encourage" somebody to think about sexuality outside the status quo? Homosexuality can't be passed on through any amount of encouragement. And it's not passed on genetically through homosexuals reproducing together.

The minority always has incentive to question the views of the status quo, if they wish to have greater acceptance. Right now, the status quo in many parts of the world is to suppress homosexuality, regard it as deviancy, and claim that heterosexuality is the "right" thing. Not only does the homosexual minority want to encourage a discussion on sexuality to secure a better life for themselves, but they also want to strengthen the ranks by encouraging people who really are homosexual to recognize that and not feel they have to hide it due to the strength, and sometimes brutality, of the status quo.


When you talk about gay people having to actively proselytize or encourage people to reconsider their own sexual orientation.....it might be giving other people the wrong idea about your feelings on homosexuality, is all I'm saying. It's not like all the gay people in the world want everyone else to be gay, or want only their "gay genes" to be passed on. But even if everybody suddenly became homosexual, do you think human reproduction would just cease?

I understand that people may get the wrong idea, and I regret that. However, someone having the wrong idea does nothing to address my argument. If I am wrong, I would be happy to know why. This has nothing to do with my "beliefs" on sexuality, because I nearly have none--people can do whatever the hell they want.

If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods.


You said you saw the advantage in a small portion of homosexual men in a given ancient society, so they could help with hunting and protection. Do you not see another advantage in having a small portion of lesbian women in that same ancient society to help with childrearing? Women used to die pretty regularly during pregnancy and childbirth.

I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.

ponderingturtle
1st February 2010, 11:32 AM
More modern studies have backed up the prevalence of male bisexuality.

He also seemed to have seriously biased his sample group.

ponderingturtle
1st February 2010, 11:36 AM
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?

Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't.

It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation.

Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all.

barrymore
1st February 2010, 11:43 AM
Um that is not a fact, for it to be a fact it would have to be true, and it isn't.

It is entirely possible for two people who are not attracted sexualy to eachother very much and would not want to form a pair bond, to have sexual intercourse for the purposes of pregnancy an procreation.

Now you could argue that their history makes them bi, but then there would be very few homsexuals as it is not that remarkable for them to have had heterosexual relationships first after all.

I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society?

Of course if there were only gay couples (woman-woman and male-male, but no woman-male) they could reproduce. I am not arguing otherwise. But there would have to be some mechanism for that state to exist in the first place! I am arguing that the mechanism is the exact opposite, if anything.

ponderingturtle
1st February 2010, 11:45 AM
I may have misunderstood you the first time. I took you to imply that communities of lesbian women or gay men (mutually exclusive) could reproduce. Clearly they could not. If you did not mean this, how is your example different from modern society?

How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality.

This is your straw comunity you explain it.

Ivor the Engineer
1st February 2010, 12:00 PM
What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

barrymore
1st February 2010, 12:01 PM
How could you ever get a comunity of exclusively gay men? What happened to create that? You know that a community of strictly heterosexual women couldn't reproduce either, clearly there is some evolutionary problem with heterosexuality.

This is your straw comunity you explain it.

My whole argument is based on evolution favoring heterosexuals, why would I claim that a one-sex or two-sex homosexual society could exist? The only times I have mentioned it is in response to others in an effort to make sense of unclear arguments (such as Rasmus' remark about colonies).

Evolution just does not kill stuff off because it wants to. I am arguing there is a mechanism for which homosexuality is evolutionarily disadvantaged. Nowhere am I saying some whirly-gig God in the sky is going kill all of them off just because he does not agree with it. I do not see anywhere in the mechanism that I have proposed where there would only be one-sex heterosexuals left. If there is, point it out. If there is not, let's get on with arguing instead of putting words in others' mouths.

barrymore
1st February 2010, 12:09 PM
What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

Well, it depends on what the source of the hormones is, of course. Evolution does not have to work directly on a sexuality gene if sexuality is causally correlated with other genetic traits.

Ziggurat
1st February 2010, 12:20 PM
What if a person's sexuality is not determined by his or her genes, but by what happens to them in the environment, e.g., exposure to hormones in the womb?

How would natural selection select against non-genetic traits?

What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones.

If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus.

Fiona
1st February 2010, 12:34 PM
If everybody became homosexual, there would obviously be an evolutionary mechanism in place for that to happen in the first place, so no reproduction would not just cease. But anyways, evolution of a species cannot be considered in isolation just on that species--it must always be considered relative to something (the natural environment, other species, whatever). So the reproduction of this group depends on the environment as a whole, not just on reproduction methods.

Yes.


I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

Can you cite for the idea that men would "typically go out and hunt". That is not my understanding of how hunter/gatherer societies operate, and I see no reason why it should have been that way in the past. Most such societies get about 80% of their food from gathering and there is no inherent advantage for one gender or the other. Big game is often scavenged, not killed: and small game is a more usual source of meat. So unless you can demonstrate how and why early man lived differently from those kinds of societies today, I think your premise about gender differences and their implications is at best over-egged. The fact is we do not know and we cannot generalise in this way.

What about the development of agriculture: do you suppose that the situation vis-a-vis gender stayed the same? In many agricultural societies there is more division of labour but most of the food is produced by the farmer and very often the farmer is female: it is women's work in fact. The diivision of labour is a feature of settled communities, not of hunter gatherer societies. Both kinds of societies are very variable and the idea of "man the hunter and protector" is a modern imposition with little or no evidence to sustain it.

But let us suppose you are correct: how then do the males provide security given they are away hunting? Perhaps you believe that some of the men stayed home to fight off predators and other groups? In that case the product of the hunt must be held in common by the group: and so must the gathered food. That being the case women are not disadvantaged in any inherent way because they are part of the group: again it seems to me your scenario only has the implications you attribute to it because you assume a hierarchical division of property which is not a feature of hunter/gatherer societies. Is there some other organisation which has the results you assume and which is evidenced?

Or let me take the kind of thinking you propose a stage further: the men who hunt are away a lot and some other men stay home for "security". Who do you think is likely to reproduce more? Just at a guess? On your reasoning the "hunting gene" might well be at a significant disadvantage, don't you think? I wonder why they did not die out. As you say "couples could reproduce whenever they want......" And nothing propinks like propinquity, I am told. Oh and while we are on the subject, how much choice about reproduction do you think early man and early woman actually had? How was that organised? Was it the same in all places and over all prehistoric times?

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage.

Why do you assume early man was organised into couples? I have no certainty about that at all. Do you have evidence for it? Seems to me that is modern imposition, but if I am wrong please show why. It does not even work all that well after millenia of social and cultural transmission of that as an ideal and supported by strong forces such as religion etc. Why do you think it was the usual arrangement in the past ?

Or let us imagine game hunting was a major source of food in some places at some times (say in the far north where the development of a much more pure carnivorous diets was environmentally determined, perhaps) then what is it that makes a lesbian woman less able to participate than a man? What is it about fishing that makes men better at it? Is it their superior stamina? their enhanced ability to withstand the cold because of the extra layer of fat? ...oh wait.

I can quite see a pregnant woman has a problem: but on your scenario the lesbian is not pregnant. The only mechanism I can see which would exclude the lesbian from a hunt is social gender norms. A big game hunt might be a rite of passage for boys and not for girls, I suppose: but that is not day to day stuff and we do not know when it developed nor if it was universal: there is evidence to suggest it is not, and that at least in some places hunting is not gendered.

A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.

For reasons given I think this needs to be established from the bottom up: I do not accept your premises so I cannot accept your conclusion

But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see.

Ivor the Engineer
1st February 2010, 12:48 PM
What you're suggesting isn't a situation in which genes are irrelevant to determining sexuality, but a situation in which it isn't solely the genes of the individual. For example, hormone production levels by the mother have a genetic component, and the fetus would almost certainly have a genetic component to their sensitivity to hormones.

If sexuality is biological, then there's a genetic component to it, even if that component is not simple (ie, arising out of complex interactions of many genes), even if it depends on the genetics of the mother as well, and even if it depends on environmental factors external to both mother and fetus.

While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?

Ivor the Engineer
1st February 2010, 12:51 PM
<snip>

But there is another problem with your reasoning which arises from the same source, I think. Hunter gatherer societies are usually small groups and often nomadic. Too many mouths to feed in relation to the productive members is not conducive to survival of the group. And without the group the individual will not survive, for we are a social species. Homosexuals are of positive value for this reason. Even if homosexuality is genetic it is perfectly possible that the group survives better with a proportion of homosexuals and their genes are passed on because they are related to the heterosexual members who also carry those genes. There is no reason at all why they would die out, that I can see.

Not a proponent of the selfish gene theory?

barrymore
1st February 2010, 01:10 PM
While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?

Well, that is certainly a possibility I suppose, in which case an evolutionary mechanism relating to sexuality would not be valid. I am not disputing that.

I am proposing a mechanism if sexuality is genetic (directly or indirectly). I will do a literature search myself and take a look at what is out there.

Mark6
1st February 2010, 01:31 PM
How many men really believe that all women are just one pillow fight away from girl-on-girl action? Or is it better to believe it only happens when there's some dude there to videotape the action?

"All women"? Of course not. Any man (or woman, for that matter) who actually believes it is an idiot.

Having said that, I must point out that I had met a fair number of women who:

a) Preferred hetero sex, but only with a man they really liked
b) If they could not find a really good man, would sleep with each other rather than with some jerk man

What do you call women like that? "Lesbian by necessity"?

(Again, from what I saw, real dyed-in-the-wool dykes either hated above mentioned women, or tried to "fully convert" them -- generally in vain.)

Ivor the Engineer
1st February 2010, 01:47 PM
Lesbian sex is less risky for a woman compared to heterosexual intercourse. Perhaps bisexual women are just responding to incentives?

Sledge
1st February 2010, 02:18 PM
Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.
From experience, no there isn't. PUBLIC school boys might be reasonably infamous for it, but I don't know how much of that is actually true.

kellyb
1st February 2010, 02:19 PM
My impression around 1995, in 11th grade, was that it suddenly became "trendy" to be bi.

ponderingturtle
1st February 2010, 02:38 PM
Why do you assume early man was organised into couples? I have no certainty about that at all. Do you have evidence for it? Seems to me that is modern imposition, but if I am wrong please show why. It does not even work all that well after millenia of social and cultural transmission of that as an ideal and supported by strong forces such as religion etc. Why do you think it was the usual arrangement in the past ?

It seems that couple bonding or polygyny are the most common forms of human bonding by far. It is not unreasonable that this would be the pattern in human prehistory.

ponderingturtle
1st February 2010, 02:40 PM
My impression around 1995, in 11th grade, was that it suddenly became "trendy" to be bi.

No, see Queen.

There have been plenty of times that being bi was trendy, if only in some subcultures.

Thunder
1st February 2010, 02:51 PM
Actually, from experience, there's just as much casual homosexual behavior in boys during high school years, just no one talks about it. Seriously, British boys schools are reasonably infamous for this.

really? i had no idea. i really saw no overt homosexual activity in my school.

...though I didn't hang out with the football players in the shower. :)

but this is interesting. clearly, male bi-sexuality is a lot less tolerated in our society. and yes, girl-on-girl action is a lot more accepted in our society, especially at parties and other social events, then guy on guy.

though, I still think there is something biological to the increased amount of female bi-sexuality then male bi-sexuality. i just can't prove it.

but i will!!!!! muhahahaha!!!

:)

Ivor the Engineer
1st February 2010, 02:54 PM
My impression around 1995, in 11th grade, was that it suddenly became "trendy" to be bi.

Does your state allow young women to have abortions without their parents being informed?

Thunder
1st February 2010, 03:06 PM
teenage party. two hot girls make out. the boys AND girls cheer!!!

two boys make out? they will be lucky if they get out alive.

kellyb
1st February 2010, 03:10 PM
Does your state allow young women to have abortions without their parents being informed?

http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/abortion/tennessee/

Informed, written consent of mother, 48-hour waiting period between M.D. giving mother information and consent; after viability, same as first trimester except M.D. must certify in writing to the hospital that procedure was necessary; by at least one parent must consent to abortion to be performed on minor; no parental consent necessary if emergency; minor may petition court for waiver
So, no.

I still think it had more to do with being the "in" thing to do, though. This was in the Bible belt, and I think it had more to do with rebelling against religious sexual oppression.

Fiona
1st February 2010, 03:12 PM
It seems that couple bonding or polygyny are the most common forms of human bonding by far. It is not unreasonable that this would be the pattern in human prehistory.

You mean serial couple bonding presumably? Because even when the social penalties are very strong monogamy does not seem to be as prevalent as the narrative would like to suggest. And polygamy is hardly a possibility without capital: do you have examples of that in hunter gatherer societies? How does it work?

Elf Grinder 3000
1st February 2010, 03:38 PM
Does anyone know the % of homosexuality in humans? I have heard 10% but this seems way too high I think it is spin. I would guess more like 1 out of 40.

Wiki says about 1.5%

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_America_is_homosexual

Based on a 2000 census

Ziggurat
1st February 2010, 04:00 PM
While I agree there can be (and often is) a genetic susceptibility or component to many conditions and behaviours, what if it were found women who eat a lot of oranges in weeks 6-8 of pregnancy have a much higher probability of producing homosexual offspring, while those who eat a lot of apples produce mostly heterosexual offspring? In this case how would it be useful to think of sexuality as being primarily determined by genes?

It wouldn't, and that's not my point. Rather, my point is that from an evolutionary perspective, genetics are still relevant. It may be that there is currently no (or little) variability in the genes which dictate the response to environmental stimuli, but that need not be the case forever.

Thunder
1st February 2010, 04:36 PM
Does anyone know the % of homosexuality in humans? I have heard 10% but this seems way too high I think it is spin. I would guess more like 1 out of 40.

Wiki says about 1.5%

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_America_is_homosexual

Based on a 2000 census

i thought it was 10%?

Fiona
1st February 2010, 04:52 PM
http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

It is not really clear because there are so many confounders. Estimates vary a lot

Third Eye Open
1st February 2010, 04:53 PM
Barrymore,

There are two reasons, I think, why homosexuals are not selected out through evolution. One, homosexuality is a side effect of some other helpful gene. Homosexuality has been around through all of recorded history and is seen in many other species, so it is not an odd aberration. It is something that happens often in nature, so must not be detrimental to the species.

Option two, which I prefer, is that it is actually helpful for a community to have non childbearing people who help raise the children of others. This would also apply to heterosexual people who have no drive to have children of their own. Even if I have no children of my own, much of my genes will be passed on through my sisters children, and my helping her to raise her children and make their lives better could be a better help than having even more children of my own.

On another unrelated note, this is the same reason why the 'idiocracy analogy' is bs.
Even if all people of above average intelligence had children 0% of the time, it would still be greatly beneficial to the parents and siblings of the intelligent person to have them around, ensuring that the genes, though dormant in all breeders, would stay in the gene pool. This would lead to the intelligent people becoming a 'working class' that did not breed, and the rest being the breeders.

gnome
1st February 2010, 06:23 PM
teenage party. two hot girls make out. the boys AND girls cheer!!!

two boys make out? they will be lucky if they get out alive.

In my limited experience of listening to kids talk, there currently seem to be groups of teenagers that will cheer ANY drama, including unexpected boy-boy displays.

Granted, they're not the stereotypical "popular kids" but there seem to be a lot of them.

GreyICE
1st February 2010, 09:14 PM
i thought it was 10%?

That was Kinsey's original estimate, based on the 10% gay/10% perfectly straight, rest in the middle.

Actual studies of actual people tend to peg it a bit differently, but Kinsey didn't believe in unchanging sexuality anyway, so everyone repeating that 10% has been an idiot from the word go (that being said, mostly gay interest groups were responsible for it - you can't blame the 'Family Values' coalition for ALL the bad science (just most of it).

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 09:19 PM
I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.
Ah, I wasn't talking about same-sex couples, but rather same-sex individuals living in a society. Either a homosexual male or a homosexual female can be a benefit to the group, working to care for others (especially to "replace" men and women who are killed while their own offspring are too young to fend for themselves), while not providing extra mouths for the group.

Homosexuals aren't in any danger of dying out due to evolution. If all the homosexuals were struck down by lightning today, more would be born to heterosexual parents tomorrow.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 09:22 PM
"All women"? Of course not. Any man (or woman, for that matter) who actually believes it is an idiot. I was just responding to Parky's bizarre OP statement:

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

Having said that, I must point out that I had met a fair number of women who:

a) Preferred hetero sex, but only with a man they really liked
b) If they could not find a really good man, would sleep with each other rather than with some jerk man

What do you call women like that? "Lesbian by necessity"?
I have no idea. I've never met a woman like that in over 40 years.

Sun Countess
1st February 2010, 09:28 PM
teenage party. two hot girls make out. the boys AND girls cheer!!!

two boys make out? they will be lucky if they get out alive.
Clearly, I don't get out enough.

Certainly I've noticed an increase in het women making out on MTV "reality" programming, but I figured they were specially selected from a small subset of under-educated celeb-obsessed famewhores who don't come anywhere close to representing the average American.


And don't be fooled. There are plenty of het women who enjoy some hot man-on-man action. ;)

arthwollipot
1st February 2010, 09:34 PM
My anecdotal experience suggests, as others have mentioned, that female bisexuality is way more socially acceptable today. For a demonstration, look at porn sites. Sites designed for heterosexual males always contain lesbian porn. They do not routinely contain male homosexual porn. For that you usually have to go to specific sites.

Um, not that I'd know, or anything. Anyway.

I believe that I could say that I personally know more bi or lesbian women than I know bi or gay men. But it would be a close count. It seems to me that it's far more socially acceptible these days for a young woman's first sexual experiences to be with other women. I know several young women who were sexually active with girlfriends before they got boyfriends. I can't say the same thing about young men, although that might be just because they don't talk about it or engage in PDAs as much as women do.

And I may have been sheltered when I was in school - actually, let's face it, I was pretty sheltered when I was in school - but I didn't see much sexual activity going on at all. They must have been moderately discreet about it, that's all I can say.

Myself? I'm bi. I just haven't met the right man yet.

Democracy Simulator
1st February 2010, 10:44 PM
Women, are MUCH more social with each other then men. They support each other, very emotionally. They seek advice from each other, they comfort each other. They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Men are a much more independent creature, for whatever hunter/gatherer reasons, and women are clearly more of a group biology.

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.



In my experience women are generally better than men at discriminating between 'touching that is going to lead to sex' and 'touching for another purpose'. So it may be a further leap than you perceive.

On a related topic, I once had an argument with a rather Literal Believer about lesbianism in the Bible. I asserted that lesbianism is not condemned in the Bible (Romans 1: 26 might be read by some to condemn lesbianism, but there is a good argument otherwise, that it is actually referring to 'unnatural' heterosexual practices; I'll leave it to your imaginations)
Anyway, the said Literal Believer then put forward an argument along the lines of lesbianism not being a recognised cultural phenomenon of the time, so the Bible didn't need to mention it. So I surmised from this that it was the Literal Believer's opinion that some truths in the Bible were culturally relative and from there put forward the idea that perhaps the whole Bible 'thing' against homosexuality was one of those culturally relative sections. He went back to arguing about Romans 1: 26.
Actually if you look in some translations of the Bible (the New Living Version for example), the translation of Romans 1: 26 has been made explicitly anti-lesbian. It is worth looking up, to see a blatant attempt to close what I affectionately call the LLL (Literal Lesbian Loophole). Anyway, I digress somewhat...

Mark6
2nd February 2010, 06:00 AM
I must point out that I had met a fair number of women who:

a) Preferred hetero sex, but only with a man they really liked
b) If they could not find a really good man, would sleep with each other rather than with some jerk man

What do you call women like that? "Lesbian by necessity"?

I have no idea. I've never met a woman like that in over 40 years.
Perhaps (and I am not being facetious) it is specific to demographic I hung out with during and after college -- poor-to-lower-middle-class background, often pretty bad childhood, but highly intelligent and made through college on brains and detemination.

ponderingturtle
2nd February 2010, 07:10 AM
You mean serial couple bonding presumably? Because even when the social penalties are very strong monogamy does not seem to be as prevalent as the narrative would like to suggest. And polygamy is hardly a possibility without capital: do you have examples of that in hunter gatherer societies? How does it work?

I remember reading Turnbulls recounting his life with the Mbuti and I think one of the men lived slightly seperate and had several wives. The Yanomami do practice polygygny but you could argue if they are hunter gatherers or not. But really I can't say if there is enough evidence if you can say one way or the other. We really have no idea how people lived 50,000 years ago.

You also get complicated issues of if there is a surplus of women in such a culture it is not unreasonable for them to share a husband for support.

It seems that monogamy is a relatively common ideal, if it is not often lived up to in practice. Then of course there are issues of male vs female fidelity

ponderingturtle
2nd February 2010, 07:12 AM
Does anyone know the % of homosexuality in humans? I have heard 10% but this seems way too high I think it is spin. I would guess more like 1 out of 40.

Wiki says about 1.5%

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percent_of_America_is_homosexual

Based on a 2000 census

The 10% comes from Kinsey and is broadly known to be a result of his poor sampleing methods.(well I am not sure he tried to get a statistical sample of the population at large).

So 10% of Kinseys male participants were gay, the commonly accepted numbers I hear are 3-5% for men, lower for women. It is not unreasonable to think that there might well be different causes and effects of what defines the sexuality of each.

ponderingturtle
2nd February 2010, 07:15 AM
Barrymore,

There are two reasons, I think, why homosexuals are not selected out through evolution. One, homosexuality is a side effect of some other helpful gene. Homosexuality has been around through all of recorded history and is seen in many other species, so it is not an odd aberration. It is something that happens often in nature, so must not be detrimental to the species.

This assumes that genetics plays a strong role in homosexuality. It could be an uncommon expression of having a strong sex drive. There are many things that are not genetic but just random things that hit people.

The fallacy is that if it is not a choice it must be genetic. People and biology are much more complicated than that.

Aepervius
2nd February 2010, 07:34 AM
The only OVERT homosexuality I saw in High School was female homosexuality. The reason for that was simple : male homosexual would have been 1) shunned 2) beaten 3) driven out by the roving gang. sad ? Yes. Female were left alone by those gangs. I later learned in university that at least 1 guy in my HS (lycée) class was homo.

That alone is enough for me to hint that male homosexuality might be more wide spread that thought in HS. Me I was too occupied trying to get my hand in some cleavage or underskirt action to pay attention to that.

But never ever in my time I have heard, learned, or got told that anybody I ever knew was bisexual. Homo lesbian yes, but never bi.

Mark6
2nd February 2010, 07:49 AM
But never ever in my time I have heard, learned, or got told that anybody I ever knew was bisexual. Homo lesbian yes, but never bi.
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.

gnome
2nd February 2010, 07:51 AM
double post

gnome
2nd February 2010, 07:52 AM
Perhaps (and I am not being facetious) it is specific to demographic I hung out with during and after college -- poor-to-lower-middle-class background, often pretty bad childhood, but highly intelligent and made through college on brains and detemination.

Would that truly be a case of a heterosexual woman flexing out of lack of options, or is it a bisexual woman who prefers men somewhat but enjoys the ladies too?

Mark6
2nd February 2010, 07:54 AM
Would that truly be a case of a heterosexual woman flexing out of lack of options, or is it a bisexual woman who prefers men somewhat but enjoys the ladies too?
I don't know. I can only tell what I observed, not what went on in their heads.

Cuddles
2nd February 2010, 08:34 AM
Homosexuals aren't in any danger of dying out due to evolution. If all the homosexuals were struck down by lightning today, more would be born to heterosexual parents tomorrow.

The whole argument about homosexuality not being genetic because it should have evolved away is just stupid. There are plenty of genetic conditions that are extremely detrimental to survival, let alone reproduction, yet they still exist today. Given that, how could it possibly be obvious that homosexuality should have gone extinct, when all it has going against it is the potential for a lower chance of reproducing?

For example - Tay-Sachs disease. Almost always fatal long before reproduction is possible. Still exists today.
In comparison - Homosexuality. Not fatal, and not known to cause any health related problems at all. May result in less chance of reproducing, but still very much possible to do so. Still exists today.

The former is known to be caused by a single gene. Clearly it hasn't evolved away. So why would homosexuality, given that it will obviously have much less evolutionary pressure against it?

Note that I'm not claiming homosexuality must be entirely, or even partially, genetic. Merely that evolution is not a valid argument against it being genetic.

My anecdotal experience suggests, as others have mentioned, that female bisexuality is way more socially acceptable today. For a demonstration, look at porn sites. Sites designed for heterosexual males always contain lesbian porn. They do not routinely contain male homosexual porn. For that you usually have to go to specific sites.

I certainly wouldn't know anything about that either, but I have heard similar things from, er, friends. I think it raises an interesting question about how much taboo things like porn have influenced culture. The reason lesbians appear a lot in porn but not gay men so much is simple really - men look at porn more than women, most men are straight, straight men like looking at girls rather than boys, therefore porn is more likely to show women, whether alone or in groups, than men. The question is then if lesbian and bisexual women being more common in porn than gay and bi men is part of the reason for them being generally seen as more acceptable in society. Could it simply be that gay women are more familiar, while gay men tend to be something only other gay men see?

Ivor the Engineer
2nd February 2010, 08:43 AM
Could it be repulsion at getting poo on your body, let alone another person's?

HansMustermann
2nd February 2010, 11:08 AM
I was referring to opposite-sex couples, not same-sex ones. Typically, the males would go out and hunt, while the women would stay back and tend to the household. Plus, males are more effective at providing security. And the couples could reproduce whenever they want.

Fiona already addressed this, but just to add some detail:

The history of humanity and the life of hunter-gatherer tribes is not a happy post-scarcity industrial economy. Over-population, over-hunting and just plain bad seasons produced severe hunger more often than you'd think. We can actually determine stuff like that by, say, checking the tooth ennamel in fossils, and some grew up severely malnourished.

What I'm getting at is that they never had the resources to enact your kind of scenario; you know, one where only about a third of the population (i.e., about 2/3 of the males) actually works, a third of the males guard the women, and the women lounge around in the teepee. Anyone who tried something like that, would starve into oblivion.

Where a division of labour exists, men go hunting, while women and children go gathering. And btw, there are no males playing escort fighters for them. If she meets a tiger, she'll have to somehow avoid it on her own.

Note however that the male tactics would be largely the same, though. They'd hunt animals that don't fight back, while avoiding the predators. A lone hunter has nothing to gain from trying to bravely wrestle a tiger with his flint knife, like in Rahan comics. The brute force, natural weapons and killer bite instinct would favour the cat every single time. Even if you somehow won, even superficial wounds can infect and kill you in an age before antibiotics and sterilized bandages, and it doesn't take many scratches before just blood loss would disable you.

Essentially the males had to do the exact same as the females: try to avoid the predators.

And you can see this in the reduced sexual dimorphism in humans. The evolution towards Homo Sapiens was marked by a fast reduction in size difference between men and women, and men lost any natural weapons of their ape ancestors. The roles really were that similar, and there just wasn't a need for big strong men protecting helpless women. The role of the helpless female who needs a big strong guy to protect her is a rather modern invention, and was mostly confined to the upper classes until very recently.

A lesbian couple would most likely be at a disadvantage in the hunting and security part, thus putting them at an evolutionary disadvantage. A male-male couple would probably fend better because it is easier for a male to take care of the household than it is for a woman to hunt effectively. However, both couples are reproductively challenged, which puts them at a further disadvantage.

A same sex lesbian couple, if their tribe sticks that strictly to division of labour rules, would however be seriously advantaged at gathering, while the same-sex male couple would have the food problem. But in reality the roles weren't that strictly separated.

Men went gathering too, if all else failed.

And the notion of a female hunter is a lot more feasible than you seem to assume.

For a start a lot of hunting happened with traps or such. I believe that a woman would be just as good at catching rabbits as any man.

Second, the bows of primitive tribes were not exactly the monster-pull yew longbows of the hundred year war. It took humanity ages to even discover a grip other than holding the arrow between index finger and thumb and pulling, which limits the maximum pull rather drastically. As late as Ancient Rome times, they preferred Cretan archers because those were one of the very few people which perfected a better way to pull the string (in that case, think: index and middle finger pulling directly at the string, with the arrow between them), which allowed them to use much higher pull bows for increased range and penetration. But at any rate, your average hunter-gatherer bows are inherently limited to such a low pull that really a woman _can_ do it.

Mind you, most did prefer to send the males hunting, but there is no reason why a woman couldn't if she had to.

But even bows and arrows are a very late invention. More primitive ways involved spears and basically all it took was a good aim and, if you'll pardon the crass expression, balls. You have to make some animal (e.g., a boar but it could be even mammoth sized with enough of a group) charge at you, and you'd prop the spear's end firmly in the ground and try to aim the tip so the incoming animal impales itself on it. If you aimed wrong, well, congrats, you just earned your trip to the happy hunting grounds ;) Your own strength played exactly zero role in the actual hunting.

While I'm not sure about Homo Sapiens, we have plenty of evidence from the Neanderthals that their women hunted perfectly well like that. In fact, apparently everyone did.

Other ways of hunting involved basically more wits than strength or anything. For example see the buffalo skips used by the North American indians. They basically just scared a herd of buffaloes into stampeding off a cliff.

Morrigan
2nd February 2010, 11:44 AM
So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.
Wow... just, wow. Are you for real?

tesscaline
2nd February 2010, 11:52 AM
Could it be repulsion at getting poo on your body, let alone another person's?Right, because all gay men engage in anal, and no one but gay men engage in anal. Ever.

The level of callous ignorance in this thread is sickening. You do realize that people from the groups you are making assumptions about frequent these forums and read these threads right?

Ivor the Engineer
2nd February 2010, 12:30 PM
Right, because all gay men engage in anal, and no one but gay men engage in anal. Ever.

The level of callous ignorance in this thread is sickening. You do realize that people from the groups you are making assumptions about frequent these forums and read these threads right?

Well I suppose there could be another factor other than engaging in anal sex which primarily explains the difference in the prevalence of HIV infection between gay men, heterosexual men and women and lesbians. Any suggestions?

Yoink
2nd February 2010, 12:37 PM
Well I suppose there could be another factor other than engaging in anal sex which primarily explains the difference in the prevalence of HIV infection between gay men, heterosexual men and women and lesbians. Any suggestions?

Man, I can't wait for the 1990s to come either.

tesscaline
2nd February 2010, 02:28 PM
Well I suppose there could be another factor other than engaging in anal sex which primarily explains the difference in the prevalence of HIV infection between gay men, heterosexual men and women and lesbians. Any suggestions?How is this relevant to the comment I was replying to?

Oh right, it isn't.

Alan
2nd February 2010, 02:45 PM
The only OVERT homosexuality I saw in High School was female homosexuality. The reason for that was simple : male homosexual would have been 1) shunned 2) beaten 3) driven out by the roving gang. sad ? Yes. Female were left alone by those gangs. I later learned in university that at least 1 guy in my HS (lycée) class was homo.

That alone is enough for me to hint that male homosexuality might be more wide spread that thought in HS. Me I was too occupied trying to get my hand in some cleavage or underskirt action to pay attention to that.

But never ever in my time I have heard, learned, or got told that anybody I ever knew was bisexual. Homo lesbian yes, but never bi.
Here are some studies about people around that age group:
Results for the study participants — children and young adults ages 14 to 22 — appear online in the Journal of Adolescent Health.

Of 2,720 males, 93.5 percent said they were heterosexual, 4.5 percent said they were mostly heterosexual and 0.5 percent said they were bisexual. The other 1.4 percent said they were mostly or completely homosexual.

Among the 4,839 females, 88.3 percent said they were heterosexual, 9.5 percent said they were mostly heterosexual, 1.9 percent described themselves as bisexual and 0.3 percent said they were mostly or completely [homosexual (typo in original said heterosexual)].

http://www.newswise.com/articles/sexual-orientation-affects-risk-of-bullying-in-teens

I think that people who are mostly heterosexual and mostly homosexual could arguably be factored into the bisexual category for this, without forgetting their preferences, for the purposes of that. It doesn't say how many were specifically mostly homosexual and not completely homosexual, though.

I also think that it is a big weakness that it doesn't have an "unsure" category. This one below doesn't have that problem.

This study was undertaken to explore patterns of sexual orientation in a representative sample of Minnesota junior and senior high school students. The sample included 34 706 students (grades 7 through 12) from diverse ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic strata. Five Items pertaining to sexual attraction, fantasy, behavior, and affiliation were embedded in a self-administered survey of adolescent health. Overall, 10.7% of students were "unsure" of their sexual orientation; 88.2% described themselves as predominantly heterosexual and 1.1% described themselves as bisexual or predominantly homosexual.
[...]
Gender differences were minor[...]
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/4/714

But it has the weakness of not looking as much at bisexuality (not giving percentages and separating completely heterosexual/homosexual from people along a spectrum), at least in the abstract.

Ivor the Engineer
2nd February 2010, 03:08 PM
How is this relevant to the comment I was replying to?

Oh right, it isn't.

My understanding of the point you were trying to make is that you believe anal sex is equally common for people of any sexual orientation.

Given that anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex with respect to HIV infection and homosexual men have a higher prevalence of HIV infection than heterosexual men, it would seem reasonable to assume a higher proportion of homosexual men engage in anal sex than heterosexual men or women.

But to be blunt, a woman has 50% more orifices which can be used to stimulate and contain a penis compared to a man, therefore even if the selection of which of them to insert a penis into was random, it would be expected homosexual men would end up having anal sex significantly more often than heterosexual men or women.

My original comment was in response to Cuddles closing remarks:

...The question is then if lesbian and bisexual women being more common in porn than gay and bi men is part of the reason for them being generally seen as more acceptable in society. Could it simply be that gay women are more familiar, while gay men tend to be something only other gay men see?

I think it is reasonable to assume a significant proportion of heterosexual men and women do not engage in anal sex because the thought of contact with another person's fecal matter (or another person coming in contact with their's) is for them a profound turn-off sexually. This may be limited to people from cultures which have good sanitation and hygiene.

GreyICE
2nd February 2010, 03:16 PM
Ivor... just stop. You really have no clue, and there's a point where you should drop the shovel. You totally passed that about 2 posts ago.

KingMerv00
2nd February 2010, 03:22 PM
Oh come on. His guess was that 10% were purely het (0) and 10% were totally homo (6), and the rest were somewhere in the middle.

It hurts just to think about.

Seriously, find me some decent number of studies that back this idea up, somehow, somewhere.

I admit that his idea of sexuality as fluid was groundbreaking, but his charts and numbers were very... um... innovative.

A completely unscientific poll using a tiny sample size:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130489&highlight=sexual+orientation

The Central Scrutinizer
2nd February 2010, 03:26 PM
I must reject the OP's theory due to lack of supporting evidence, to wit: Photos of hot chick on chick action.

KingMerv00
2nd February 2010, 03:29 PM
Could it be repulsion at getting poo on your body, let alone another person's?

Not unless poo comes out your mouth.

Marduk
2nd February 2010, 03:30 PM
I must reject the OP's theory due to lack of supporting evidence, to wit: Photos of hot chick on chick action.

I must also reject the OP's theory on the same grounds and also because I've noticed that ponderingturtle is out of the closet again pretending that he doesn't know anything in a thread that includes discussions of homosexual behaviour
:p

tesscaline
2nd February 2010, 03:54 PM
My understanding of the point you were trying to make is that you believe anal sex is equally common for people of any sexual orientation.No, that wasn't my point at all.

Given that anal sex is more risky than vaginal sex with respect to HIV infection and homosexual men have a higher prevalence of HIV infection than heterosexual men, it would seem reasonable to assume a higher proportion of homosexual men engage in anal sex than heterosexual men or women.Wrong, and irrelevant.

But to be blunt, a woman has 50% more orifices which can be used to stimulate and contain a penis compared to a man, therefore even if the selection of which of them to insert a penis into was random, it would be expected homosexual men would end up having anal sex significantly more often than heterosexual men or women.Right, because people use random number generators to decide what orifice to use for sexual intercourse, and only ever limit themselves to one orifice for the duration of any particular sexual encounter. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

My original comment was in response to Cuddles closing remarks:Yes, I know what your original comment was in response to. I actually read posts instead of skimming them and pulling random useless and erroneous information out of thin air to respond to them.

I think it is reasonable to assume a significant proportion of heterosexual men and women do not engage in anal sex because the thought of contact with another person's fecal matter (or another person coming in contact with their's) is for them a profound turn-off sexually. This may be limited to people from cultures which have good sanitation and hygiene.And I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

You are so blatantly wrong on all your points that it's really not worth responding to you further.

Tsukasa Buddha
2nd February 2010, 06:46 PM
Could it be repulsion at getting poo on your body, let alone another person's?

Odd how half the straight porn I see is anal.

This thread is just funny is a sad way.

Marduk
2nd February 2010, 07:50 PM
Could it be repulsion at getting poo on your body, let alone another person's?

never heard of Ass to Mouth then Ivor

;)

you live and learn

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 01:58 AM
never heard of Ass to Mouth then Ivor

;)

you live and learn

I believe the correct term is 'rimming'.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 02:07 AM
Odd how half the straight porn I see is anal.

This thread is just funny is a sad way.

Over half the Hollywood productions I see involve people in the US being shot and/or killed. Yet when I've visited the US in the past I didn't see one person being shot or killed.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 02:10 AM
Here's some evidence to support my theory:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1810028/pdf/15252963.pdf

Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease

Disgust is a powerful human emotion that has been little studied until recently. Current theories do not coherently explain the purpose of disgust, nor why a wide range of stimuli can provoke a similar emotional response. Over 40 000 individuals completed a web-based survey using photo stimuli. Images of objects holding a potential disease threat were reported as significantly more disgusting than similar images with little or no disease relevance. This pattern of response was found across all regions of the world. Females reported higher disgust sensitivity than males; there was a constant decline in disgust sensitivity over the life course; and the bodily fluids of strangers were found more disgusting than those of close relatives. These data provide evidence that the human disgust emotion may be an evolved response to objects in the environment that represent threats of infectious disease.

Kevin_Lowe
3rd February 2010, 02:44 AM
I believe the correct term is 'rimming'.

:dig:

arthwollipot
3rd February 2010, 02:53 AM
I believe the correct term is 'rimming'.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_43324ae650852e6e8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=18022)

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 03:12 AM
My understanding of the point you were trying to make is that you believe anal sex is equally common for people of any sexual orientation.

No her point was that this thread had nothing to do with anal sex before you brought it up, in a fashion characteristic of those who use it to condem male homosexuality.

I think it is reasonable to assume a significant proportion of heterosexual men and women do not engage in anal sex because the thought of contact with another person's fecal matter (or another person coming in contact with their's) is for them a profound turn-off sexually. This may be limited to people from cultures which have good sanitation and hygiene.

Given the rates suggested by recent studies and the prevelance in porn this does not seem to be the case.

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 03:14 AM
I believe the correct term is 'rimming'.

No they are different actions. Rimming is anilingus, A2M is transitioning between anal sex and oral sex.

Hmm after seeing the face palms I will add, I am putting the E into JREF.

Tsukasa Buddha
3rd February 2010, 06:01 AM
Over half the Hollywood productions I see involve people in the US being shot and/or killed. Yet when I've visited the US in the past I didn't see one person being shot or killed.

Okay... ? Sometimes it is easier to just say something than use an analogy.

Still wrong, though.

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 06:09 AM
Over half the Hollywood productions I see involve people in the US being shot and/or killed. Yet when I've visited the US in the past I didn't see one person being shot or killed.

But it shows something about how disguisting they might find the action. Because one thing is sure, it makes the viewers penis hard wouldn't be there if it didn't.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 06:23 AM
But it shows something about how disguisting they might find the action. Because one thing is sure, it makes the viewers penis hard wouldn't be there if it didn't.

No it doesn't. Some women have sexual fantasies about being raped. They do not actually want to be raped.

FYI: Porn = Fantasy. What someone fantasises about is not a good predictor of his or her actual behaviour.

GreyICE
3rd February 2010, 06:26 AM
I believe the correct term is 'rimming'.

I hate to interrupt your bliss, but...

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 07:01 AM
No it doesn't. Some women have sexual fantasies about being raped. They do not actually want to be raped.

FYI: Porn = Fantasy. What someone fantasises about is not a good predictor of his or her actual behaviour.

Wow are you in denial about how common anal sex is.

Edit to add

On a more serious note, I think you could find a real correlations between rape porn and how common rape fantasies are and how common roleplaying rape senarios is. Yes porn is fantasy, but if someone has an atainable fantasy many people with it will try to attain the fantasy. And anal sex is not a hard fantasy to attain. I mean the numbers are something over 50% of women have tried it.

Morrigan
3rd February 2010, 07:09 AM
Good ol' Ivor, he never fails to delivery the laughs.

Mark6
3rd February 2010, 08:20 AM
And I think it's reasonable to assume that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

You are so blatantly wrong on all your points that it's really not worth responding to you further.
Once or twice I had seen this simile: "X talks about Y the way virgins talk about sex -- with authority and ignorance."

Ivor definitely demonstrates the value of that simile.

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 08:59 AM
Wow are you in denial about how common anal sex is.

Edit to add

On a more serious note, I think you could find a real correlations between rape porn and how common rape fantasies are and how common roleplaying rape senarios is. Yes porn is fantasy, but if someone has an atainable fantasy many people with it will try to attain the fantasy. And anal sex is not a hard fantasy to attain. I mean the numbers are something over 50% of women have tried it.

Attaining a "non-consentual sex fantasy" in the context of consent is WAY WAY WAY different from "real" nonconsentual sex.

And just because 50% (or whatever) of women have tried anal sex doesn't mean they do it regularly, or as often as they do it vaginally.

I'm not sure if the data exists on the frequency of anal sex acts amongst heterosexual couples vs homosexual male couples, but I don't think an assumption that they are equal is superior to an assumption that they are not.

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 09:41 AM
Attaining a "non-consentual sex fantasy" in the context of consent is WAY WAY WAY different from "real" nonconsentual sex.

Of course. But then again it is not like the porn is real nonconsentual sex.

And just because 50% (or whatever) of women have tried anal sex doesn't mean they do it regularly, or as often as they do it vaginally.

I have not said that they do. It speaks to how much of a taboo it is. Tried something and didn't like it is very different from not trying something.

I'm not sure if the data exists on the frequency of anal sex acts amongst heterosexual couples vs homosexual male couples, but I don't think an assumption that they are equal is superior to an assumption that they are not.

So are talking about acts, I am talking about # of people for whom anal sex is a regular occurance.

GreyICE
3rd February 2010, 09:42 AM
Attaining a "non-consentual sex fantasy" in the context of consent is WAY WAY WAY different from "real" nonconsentual sex.

And just because 50% (or whatever) of women have tried anal sex doesn't mean they do it regularly, or as often as they do it vaginally.

I'm not sure if the data exists on the frequency of anal sex acts amongst heterosexual couples vs homosexual male couples, but I don't think an assumption that they are equal is superior to an assumption that they are not.

I think you missed the point boat. Ivor's idea was that people don't like male homosexuals because 'omg anal sex is disgusting!'

So when most people have at least tried it, and porn involving it is very popular, it kind of kills Ivor's point, doesn't it?

Not that he'd stop digging over something like that.

themusicteacher
3rd February 2010, 10:23 AM
I really do hate to take the conversation off of ATM and Rimming and such but to the OP, there have been recent studies that suggest female sexuality is far more fluid than male sexuality. That's why we see some women going from a relationship with a man, then a woman, then back again and so forth far more than we see men.

The study I read about used pornographic images on both men and women. The images were of straight sex, lesbian sex and gay male sex. They got a little bit of relevant info on the subjects but also measured physical signs of arousal, those that can't be controlled (blood flow to genitals being an example). While most men who identified as straight physically reacted as "aroused" to straight and lesbian sex, they did not show signs of arousal when seeing images of gay men. For men identifying as gay, he opposite was true. For women, they broke them down as straight or gay but the results show that, even in women who identify as straight, there were physical signs of arousal when shown lesbian porn and the same was true for women who identified as lesbian and were shown straight porn or even bonobos mating.

It's us dudes who think everything is black or white with sexuality. And it's the religious nutjobs who think it should be black or white. Can you say "another method of control?"

GreyICE
3rd February 2010, 10:49 AM
I really do hate to take the conversation off of ATM and Rimming and such but to the OP, there have been recent studies that suggest female sexuality is far more fluid than male sexuality. That's why we see some women going from a relationship with a man, then a woman, then back again and so forth far more than we see men.

The study I read about used pornographic images on both men and women. The images were of straight sex, lesbian sex and gay male sex. They got a little bit of relevant info on the subjects but also measured physical signs of arousal, those that can't be controlled (blood flow to genitals being an example). While most men who identified as straight physically reacted as "aroused" to straight and lesbian sex, they did not show signs of arousal when seeing images of gay men. For men identifying as gay, he opposite was true. For women, they broke them down as straight or gay but the results show that, even in women who identify as straight, there were physical signs of arousal when shown lesbian porn and the same was true for women who identified as lesbian and were shown straight porn or even bonobos mating.

It's us dudes who think everything is black or white with sexuality. And it's the religious nutjobs who think it should be black or white. Can you say "another method of control?"
I hate to be the Clause in the room, but do we have a link or something? While it's a nice idea, conceptually, it could easily be caused by something stupid. For instance, if their major method of measuring physical responses was blood flow to the genitals, what control did they use to account for sex differences in genitals? It'd be easy to get a lot of positives with women and less with men if the hook up to men was less sensitive, for whatever reason. Women having a stronger reaction to something like Bonobos mating would actually tend to support that particular interpretation, imho.

Also, what controls did they use to make sure that they were not simply observing a social response instead of an innate one?

tesscaline
3rd February 2010, 11:08 AM
I hate to be the Clause in the room, but do we have a link or something? While it's a nice idea, conceptually, it could easily be caused by something stupid. For instance, if their major method of measuring physical responses was blood flow to the genitals, what control did they use to account for sex differences in genitals? It'd be easy to get a lot of positives with women and less with men if the hook up to men was less sensitive, for whatever reason. Women having a stronger reaction to something like Bonobos mating would actually tend to support that particular interpretation, imho.

Also, what controls did they use to make sure that they were not simply observing a social response instead of an innate one?If it's the study I think it is, it was torn to shreds in the last thread on bisexuality we had here.

Ziggurat
3rd February 2010, 11:12 AM
I hate to be the Clause in the room, but do we have a link or something? While it's a nice idea, conceptually, it could easily be caused by something stupid. For instance, if their major method of measuring physical responses was blood flow to the genitals, what control did they use to account for sex differences in genitals?

I don't think it's a difference in the genitals themselves (meaning that blood flow to the genitals is a good indicator of physical arousal for both men and women), but there are other studies I've heard of which indicate that for women, physical arousal (ie, increased blood flow to the genitals) is not well correlated with mental arousal. That is, women's perceptions of their own arousal often didn't match what their bodies were doing. But that's not the case with men, whose perceptions of their arousal matched very closely with the actual physical response.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 11:20 AM
I think you missed the point boat. Ivor's idea was that people don't like male homosexuals because 'omg anal sex is disgusting!'

Ivor's idea was that our disgust of fecal matter may influence our sexual preferences. In a similar way, heterosexual men who do not have access to women may engage in homosexual sex because their desire for sexual gratification overwhelms their disgust of getting fecal matter on their bodies.

So when most people have at least tried it, and porn involving it is very popular, it kind of kills Ivor's point, doesn't it?

<snip>

Where is your evidence to support your claim that "most people have at least tried it [anal sex]"?

Horror and gore movies are very popular as well, especially when they also feature young buxom women who get their kit off. Have most people tried being a serial killer as well?

Anyhow, I don't want to spoil your fun. Please continue.

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 11:25 AM
Ivor's idea was that our disgust of fecal matter may influence our sexual preferences. In a similar way, heterosexual men who do not have access to women may engage in homosexual sex because their desire for sexual gratification overwhelms their disgust of getting fecal matter on their bodies.

And why wouldn't they be happy with a nice blow job? What is it about the butt that is so overwhelming that if someone can not get any vagina they jump right to the disgusting butt?


Your hypothosis does not stand very well on its own at all.

Eos of the Eons
3rd February 2010, 11:33 AM
Anecdotally I know a bisexual female that is very flighty from way back to high school. Married a guy who was a jerk. Then dated some girls, then a guy here and there, and now going girl again. Her kids are going to be fracced up emotional messes since they are always moving, like every 6 months and the break ups are epic. There is no doubt she is attracted to men and women and not just not bothering with men. She gets all lusty when she's bored with the current hookup, and it doesn't matter if it's a guy or a girl, the current squeeze is dumped while she follows her lust to the next one. My head spins when I try to figure out where she's at currently. Attraction and lust. Not any love going on there, and companionship is barely a consideration. I don't think she gets that, I just watch and shake my head.

tesscaline
3rd February 2010, 11:34 AM
Ivor's idea was that our disgust of fecal matter may influence our sexual preferences. In a similar way, heterosexual men who do not have access to women may engage in homosexual sex because their desire for sexual gratification overwhelms their disgust of getting fecal matter on their bodies.Wow... You really believe that refraining from homosexual behavior actually has to do with feces in some way, don't you. At first I thought you were just trolling, but now I can see you actually believe this repugnantly ignorant drivel. That's sad man, really sad.

Where is your evidence to support your claim that "most people have at least tried it [anal sex]"?

Horror and gore movies are very popular as well, especially when they also feature young buxom women who get their kit off. Have most people tried being a serial killer as well?

Anyhow, I don't want to spoil your fun. Please continue.And now you demonstrate that you don't understand the fundamental differences between porn and other media. Yes, porn is so in the same category as horror movies are.

I like scifi/fantasy films. Do you think this means I fantasize about screwing unicorns or aliens? For FSM's sake, get a clue already.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 11:34 AM
And why wouldn't they be happy with a nice blow job? What is it about the butt that is so overwhelming that if someone can not get any vagina they jump right to the disgusting butt?


Your hypothosis does not stand very well on its own at all.

That is entirely consistent with my hypothesis.

tesscaline
3rd February 2010, 11:37 AM
That is entirely consistent with my hypothesis.
Not the hypothesis you put forward, no.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 11:40 AM
Wow... You really believe that refraining from homosexual behavior actually has to do with feces in some way, don't you. At first I thought you were just trolling, but now I can see you actually believe this repugnantly ignorant drivel. That's sad man, really sad.

And now you demonstrate that you don't understand the fundamental differences between porn and other media. Yes, porn is so in the same category as horror movies are.

I like scifi/fantasy films. Do you think this means I fantasize about screwing unicorns or aliens? For FSM's sake, get a clue already.

Why are you so offended by my idea? Do you think I dislike gay men or other people who engage in anal sex? From what I've written, how do you know I don't enjoy anal pleasure?

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 11:54 AM
Where is your evidence to support your claim that "most people have at least tried it [anal sex]"?

link (http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/)

How about that?

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 11:59 AM
That is entirely consistent with my hypothesis.

Um how? You are talking about how anal sex fear is the root of dislike of homosexuals. Well I am not at all sure what percentage of homosexual men have anal sex on a regular basis. I know it is less than 100% as being gay doesn't mean one likes anal, it just means one likes men.

Why do discussions of this kind always either turn into arguements over defintions of bisexual or argueing over anal sex?

ponderingturtle
3rd February 2010, 12:01 PM
Why are you so offended by my idea? Do you think I dislike gay men or other people who engage in anal sex? From what I've written, how do you know I don't enjoy anal pleasure?

I hope you don't. As you seem poorly educated on the subject I would recomend more education before much anal penetration. It does have some risks, and no one wants to go to an ER for them to get something out of your butt that you lost.

Well some people might have a kink about the last...

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 12:03 PM
link (http://nymag.com/nightlife/mating/25988/)

How about that?

Please quote the section which indicates that most people have at least tried anal sex.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 12:24 PM
Um how? You are talking about how anal sex fear is the root of dislike of homosexuals. Well I am not at all sure what percentage of homosexual men have anal sex on a regular basis. I know it is less than 100% as being gay doesn't mean one likes anal, it just means one likes men.

<snip>

I have not claimed all gay men have anal sex. I have claimed it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of gay men who engage in anal sex is higher than the proportion of heterosexual men and women. I have also claimed that the disgust at getting fecal matter on one's body is a disincentive to engaging in anal sex. And finally, I don't think it is a huge leap to assume an activity which evokes the powerful emotion of disgust being paired with a group in society might lead to that group being seen as generally less acceptable than a group whose behaviour does not evoke such powerful negative emotions.

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 12:28 PM
Ivor do you think disgust at fecal matter is innate? Babies don't seem to mind, and it takes a while to teach them disgust, if that is what they end up feeling. Later, even if disgust is inculcated most folk have to get over it at least to some extent if they have a dog or a cat or an infant to care for. I am not sure revulsion is strong or universal at all

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 12:44 PM
Ivor do you think disgust at fecal matter is innate? Babies don't seem to mind, and it takes a while to teach them disgust, if that is what they end up feeling. Later, even if disgust is inculcated most folk have to get over it at least to some extent if they have a dog or a cat or an infant to care for. I am not sure revulsion is strong or universal at all

I agree. That's why in my second post on the subject I said:

I think it is reasonable to assume a significant proportion of heterosexual men and women do not engage in anal sex because the thought of contact with another person's fecal matter (or another person coming in contact with their's) is for them a profound turn-off sexually. This may be limited to people from cultures which have good sanitation and hygiene.

I'd imagine in cultures where bottom cleaning is performed directly with a hand that the disgust of fecal matter would be considerably lower than it is in cultures where toilet paper is used.

I've yet to see people picking their dog's excrement up with their bare hands. And unfortunately there are many people who do not pick it up at all.

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 12:48 PM
Most people do not get any kind of dirt on their hands as adults if they can help it: unless it is an integral part of their work or their leisure pursuits, in which case they put up with it. I do not think the disgust you appear to believe to be strong and universal is demonstrated in any culture

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 01:12 PM
Most people do not get any kind of dirt on their hands as adults if they can help it: unless it is an integral part of their work or their leisure pursuits, in which case they put up with it. I do not think the disgust you appear to believe to be strong and universal is demonstrated in any culture

You go to use a public toilet. In the water of the toilet you choose there is a large floating turd that has not been flushed down. Do you carry on using the toilet or do you find another to use?

tesscaline
3rd February 2010, 01:56 PM
Why are you so offended by my idea?I am offended by your idea because it is based on ignorant, uninformed assumptions, and by stating your idea and then having the gall to defend it, you are furthering that ignorance, and promoting misinformation.
Do you think I dislike gay men or other people who engage in anal sex? From what I've written, how do you know I don't enjoy anal pleasure?I don't purport to know what your sexual tendencies are, nor how you feel about homosexuals, or anything other than what you've said in this thread. But in this thread you have put forth the most ridiculous, blatantly uninformed, assumptive, and insulting statements I've heard about "why society isn't accepting of homosexuals" that I've heard in a long, long, LONG time. Honestly, what you've said is even worse than the cornucopia of bigoted twaddle that I've heard from religious fundies, as at least they take the matter seriously enough to bring eternal damnation into the equation.

Kevin_Lowe
3rd February 2010, 02:16 PM
You go to use a public toilet. In the water of the toilet you choose there is a large floating turd that has not been flushed down. Do you carry on using the toilet or do you find another to use?

You are dealing with the assertion that something you happen to feel is culturally determined, and not an innate and universal feeling.

Do you respond with something intelligent, or do you ask if another member of your culture feels the same way that you do, as if their answer would mean anything either way?

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 02:26 PM
I am offended by your idea because it is based on ignorant, uninformed assumptions, and by stating your idea and then having the gall to defend it, you are furthering that ignorance, and promoting misinformation.

<snip>

The only assumptions I've made are that (a) many people feel disgust towards human fecal matter and (b) people associate anal sex with homosexual men. My hypothesis is that because of (a) and (b) lesbians are considered more acceptable than homosexual men.

Which of my assumptions are wrong?

http://www.sexetc.org/story/sex/1963

...

We got a lot of strong, negative reactions when we asked teens about anal sex.

"Anal sex is not what God intended," says Laura, a freshman, in Missouri.

"It is the most disgusting form of sex there is and I wouldn't have anal sex with my girlfriend, even if it meant ending my relationship with her," adds George, 17, of Connecticut.

Why do people react this way? When we think of anything that has the word anal in it we automatically think of waste, explains Achtzehn*. This is the main reason why many think anal sex is bad. The penis and vulva are not considered as gross, he adds.

...

*James C. Achtzehn Ph.D., a retired sexuality professor from Gallaudet University, Washington, D.C.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 02:33 PM
You are dealing with the assertion that something you feel is culturally determined rather than innate and universal.

Do you respond with something intelligent, or do you ask if another member of your culture feels the same way that you do, as if their answer would mean anything either way?

Please go away Kevin. You have nothing of value to contribute.

Yoink
3rd February 2010, 02:40 PM
I have not claimed all gay men have anal sex. I have claimed it is reasonable to assume that the proportion of gay men who engage in anal sex is higher than the proportion of heterosexual men and women. I have also claimed that the disgust at getting fecal matter on one's body is a disincentive to engaging in anal sex. And finally, I don't think it is a huge leap to assume an activity which evokes the powerful emotion of disgust being paired with a group in society might lead to that group being seen as generally less acceptable than a group whose behaviour does not evoke such powerful negative emotions.

Let's just try to dissect the illogical basis of your argument step by step.

First we have the major premise: all (or most) human beings have an innate disgust at the thought of contact of any kind with fecal matter, and will find loathsome and disgusting any person they suspect may frequently come in contact with fecal matter.

O.K.--let's roll with that for a moment. Let's assume it's true. Now, immediately we run into a problem. Gay men are human beings. We might naturally assume that all or most of them share this innate disgust--no? So surely all or most gay men must express their sexuality in ways that don't involve contact with fecal matter (because they would find it disgusting).

Now you immediately see that your major premise is completely compatible with a world in which there are many gay men who openly express their sexuality, and who are in no way associated with contact with fecal matter. So you argument is--from the outset--shown to be empty.

"Aha!" I hear you say, "but you're missing my minor premise: that it is precisely gay men who are exclusively associated with inappropriate contact with fecal matter--they are precisely the 'few' human beings who do not share everyone else's innate disgust."

But your minor premise runs into problems of fact just as your major premise ran into problems of logic. We do not, in fact, associate anal sex with "inappropriate and disgusting contact with fecal matter" nor do we exclusively associate it with homosexuals. Who do I, personally, associate with anal sex? Heterosexual pornstars. Who have I, personally, witnessed participating in anal sex? Heterosexual pornstars. Does any of this extremely mainstream and widely consumed pornography that I and millions upon millions of other heterosexual males (and females) have witnessed emphasize "disgust" with "fecal matter"? No. None of it. There is, obviously, a market for such things (the infamous "2 girls 1 cup" video, for example--and notice the absence of homosexual males), but that is appealing to only a tiny, tiny audience of very particular fetishists. The vast majority of anal-sex related pornography is heterosexual and is designed to elicit excitement rather than disgust; and no visible fecal matter comes into play at all.

Now, to be sure, there is a small and very vocal minority of people who strongly associate homosexuals with inappropriate contact with fecal matter. Those people are known as tiny-minded bigots. But the fact that whenever the subject of homosexuality comes up their minds leap obsessively to images of man-on-man anal action tells us only something about them as individuals; it cannot, logically, tell us anything about the general social perception of either anal sex or homosexuality. In other words, the bigotry precedes the association with "fecal matter"; the association with fecal matter does not cause the bigotry.

QED

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 03:14 PM
Sometimes people can find something erotic in spite of a lesser, underlying yuck-factor. I'd guess that most heteros who engage in anal sex are a little weirded out by the poop factor, but ignore it. I doubt it would be different for gay dudes.

That said, I'd guess the primary reason girl on girl action is accepted and embraced by hetero males and females alike, probably has something to do with the fact that guys find it hot, and we live in predominantly patriarchal societies.

Ivor the Engineer
3rd February 2010, 03:27 PM
Yoink,

Got any evidence to suggest many people do not associate anal sex with "inappropriate and disgusting contact with fecal matter"?

No, I didn't think so.

In fact has anyone got any evidence at all (other than their self-appointed expert opinion) to refute my hypothesis that gay men are associated with an activity which is considered disgusting by many people and so are less accepted socially than lesbians and bisexual women?

BTW, putting QED at the end of your post makes you look like a pillock.

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 03:35 PM
I don't think full on lesbians are accepted any more than gay men. That would fit with my feminism theory based hypothesis, too, though.

Yoink
3rd February 2010, 03:57 PM
Yoink,

Got any evidence to suggest many people do not associate anal sex with "inappropriate and disgusting contact with fecal matter"?

Yes and I already referred to it: the contemporary heterosexual adult DVD market. Anal sex is simply ubiquitous and has no particular association with "disgust."

I'm sorry you live such a sheltered life that you're unaware of this fact, but it is a fact and it is one that utterly and completely destroys your argument.

QED.

Or, if you prefer: quod erat demonstrandum.

HansMustermann
3rd February 2010, 04:32 PM
Yoink,

Got any evidence to suggest many people do not associate anal sex with "inappropriate and disgusting contact with fecal matter"?

No, I didn't think so.

In fact has anyone got any evidence at all (other than their self-appointed expert opinion) to refute my hypothesis that gay men are associated with an activity which is considered disgusting by many people and so are less accepted socially than lesbians and bisexual women?

BTW, putting QED at the end of your post makes you look like a pillock.

There _are_ condoms, you know? Anyone who's disgusted by such contact has a very very easy way to avoid it. And anyone whose disgust of male homosexuality is based on such ideas, and somehow manages to think that anal sex is the only possible way to be gay... umm... do they also think no gay ever heard of condoms?

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 04:44 PM
ou go to use a public toilet. In the water of the toilet you choose there is a large floating turd that has not been flushed down. Do you carry on using the toilet or do you find another to use?


I flush it unless it is broken. What do you do?

Alan
3rd February 2010, 06:17 PM
I don't think full on lesbians are accepted any more than gay men. That would fit with my feminism theory based hypothesis, too, though.
19% of 980 surveyed lesbians reported crimes against their person or property because of their sexual orientation, compared to 28% of 898 gay men. It was similar for bisexuals of the respective genders (Herek, Gillis and Cogan, 1999).
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000646820

There was a better article, Eliason (1997), that looked into attitudes more directly, but I can't find the statistics from it for free online anymore.

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 06:56 PM
19% of 980 surveyed lesbians reported crimes against their person or property because of their sexual orientation, compared to 28% of 898 gay men. It was similar for bisexuals of the respective genders (Herek, Gillis and Cogan, 1999).
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5000646820

There was a better article, Eliason (1997), that looked into attitudes more directly, but I can't find the statistics from it for free online anymore.


I'm not really sure that violence is the only (or best) way to measure acceptance. (although violence is an extreme and unusually terrible expression of disapproval.)

Really unattractive people probably aren't victims of crime too disproportionately, either, even though they're not accepted well by society. Or people with noticeable disabilities, etc.

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 07:05 PM
Perhaps we should not forget that hostility towards heterosexual women is often accompanied by an accusation of lesbianism: those of us who are straight know that is not a real reason, but it is possible that lesbians are more easily misled? Just a thought

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 07:15 PM
Perhaps we should not forget that hostility towards heterosexual women is often accompanied by an accusation of lesbianism: those of us who are straight know that is not a real reason, but it is possible that lesbians are more easily misled? Just a thought

Huh? Can I get a link on exactly what you're referring to?

KingMerv00
3rd February 2010, 07:28 PM
You go to use a public toilet. In the water of the toilet you choose there is a large floating turd that has not been flushed down. Do you carry on using the toilet or do you find another to use?

My disgust of feces prevents me from defecating entirely, much in the same way my digust of feces keeps me straight.

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 07:38 PM
Huh? Can I get a link on exactly what you're referring to?

Well I am surprised you have not come across this in day-to-day experience but if you haven't you haven't

As to links: just one to hand

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/lesbians.html

The accusation of lesbianism is used to attack women's organizing to publicly discredit their human rights activism. For example, in 1998, one of the most renowned women's human rights groups in Croatia was the target of a newspaper-based campaign condemning its participation in public debates on legislation. In this campaign, allegations were made that the group was comprised of "unnatural women without children, lesbians and women defending Serbian aggressors." Allegations of lesbianism were deliberately made to silence the women and to discourage their political participation.

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 07:43 PM
Well I am surprised you have not come across this in day-to-day experience but if you haven't you haven't

As to links: just one to hand

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/lesbians.html

I actuallly have run into that before personally, but didn't know it was a widespread phenomenon.
Were you being sarcastic with your previous post? (I assumed you were, my apologies if you weren't.)

Fiona
3rd February 2010, 07:55 PM
No, not sarcastic. It is a common enough tactic and if you happen to be lesbian you might well assume that hostility actually is for the reason given: when often it is just a boo word. Or you might assume it is a common or garden boo word when it is actually a reason for hostility. I have no idea how this would affect the figures reported - but it is a factor which further complicates the gathering and interpretation of data already very hard to obtain

kellyb
3rd February 2010, 08:16 PM
No, not sarcastic. It is a common enough tactic and if you happen to be lesbian you might well assume that hostility actually is for the reason given: when often it is just a boo word. Or you might assume it is a common or garden boo word when it is actually a reason for hostility. I have no idea how this would affect the figures reported - but it is a factor which further complicates the gathering and interpretation of data already very hard to obtain

That makes sense. I don't know what to make of the data, either. I'd guess that being openly gay would make a female an easy target of a non-violent act of hostility with an accusation of "Dike!". I'd guess there very well might be a real elevated prevalence there. I'm skeptical about an elevated incidence of acts of violence towards gay chicks from heterosexuals. But those are all just guesses.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:11 AM
Yes and I already referred to it: the contemporary heterosexual adult DVD market. Anal sex is simply ubiquitous and has no particular association with "disgust."

<snip>

Ah, you referred to something. You think referring to something is the same as providing evidence?

At least ponderingturtle had a go at trying to support the claim that most people have tried anal sex with some actual evidence, even if the evidence he provided indicated the opposite was in fact the case.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:14 AM
I flush it unless it is broken. What do you do?

Depending on the general state of the toilet I either flush it or find another to use.

Why do we flush? It's not like a turd is going to jump out of the bowel and hurt us.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:20 AM
There _are_ condoms, you know? Anyone who's disgusted by such contact has a very very easy way to avoid it. And anyone whose disgust of male homosexuality is based on such ideas, and somehow manages to think that anal sex is the only possible way to be gay... umm... do they also think no gay ever heard of condoms?

Are you suggesting the use of condoms to engage in anal sex might be motivated by disgust of coming into contact with another person's fecal matter?

I have never suggested or thought that anal sex is the only possible way for gay men to be sexual. What I have suggested is that anal sex is associated with gay men more than it is heterosexual men and women, bisexuals and lesbians.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:24 AM
My disgust of feces prevents me from defecating entirely, much in the same way my digust of feces keeps me straight.

But would such disgust keep you straight if you were in prison for the next 25 years of your life and had no chance to have sex other than with men?

ETA: Would disgust of patially consumed food in a rubbish bin stop you from eating it if you had few other options available to satiate your hunger?

arthwollipot
4th February 2010, 01:38 AM
Please go away Kevin. You have nothing of value to contribute.:id:

What makes you think that anal sex has anything at all to do with faeces?

Redtail
4th February 2010, 01:45 AM
In the last decade there seems to be a marked increase in the number of women and girls who consider themselves to be "bi-sexual" or even "lesbian".

Even in high school.

Now, while I accept that lesbianism is real, and many women do indeed feel no sexual attraction to the male body and instead feel one towards fellow women, it seems to be that the growth in female bi-sexuality is less an issue of women coming out of the closet and expressing their long suppressed feelings, and more an issue of women's particular biology and social mindset.

Women, are MUCH more social with each other then men. They support each other, very emotionally. They seek advice from each other, they comfort each other. They hug each other, a WHOLE lot more than men do to each other.

Men are a much more independent creature, for whatever hunter/gatherer reasons, and women are clearly more of a group biology.

So how far is the leap from hugging and caring for each other, which many women already do, to kissing and touching sexually? Not a very far leap, if you ask me.

And then, we have all these women gathering around, comforting each other on their issues with men. How mean and cruel and uncaring men are to them. How men only care about getting laid. How hard is to see women take all this to the next step and say: "hey, we all have trouble with men, why not just hang out with each other instead?"

I can see it. I really can. How about you?

Well, My wife is Bi. Her view is she can fall in love with, and have a sexual/emotional relationship with a member either sex.

HansMustermann
4th February 2010, 01:48 AM
Are you suggesting the use of condoms to engage in anal sex might be motivated by disgust of coming into contact with another person's fecal matter?

I can't say I've given it that much thought, but I would think preventing disease is a major factor there too. Plus, in the heterosexual version preventing pregnancy is still a valid concern, since a splash conception is very much possible. (Ask Mary;))

But at any rate, you seem to read my implication there the wrong way. It was "if you're concerned about that, just use a condom", _not_ "if you use a condom, then you're concerned about that." You know, the whole issue of "X => Y" not being equivalent at all with "Y => X" ;)

I have never suggested or thought that anal sex is the only possible way for gay men to be sexual. What I have suggested is that anal sex is associated with gay men more than it is heterosexual men and women, bisexuals and lesbians.

Yes, but to justify the disgust some people claim to have at male homosexuality based on that association, you'd need a stronger association than "maybe they do come into contact with it, but probably they don't."

Basically figure out the missing operator in making the following a valid logical inferrence:

P1: X ? Y
P2: Y => Z
C: X => Z

Where X is being a homosexual, Y coming in contact with feces, and Z would be basically "it's disgusting".

And what I'm getting at is that there are such trivial ways to not arrive at Y from X, that justifying disgust at homosexuality on that "Y => Z" is rather hard to support.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 02:10 AM
<snip>

What makes you think that anal sex has anything at all to do with faeces?

I can't possibly imagine.:rolleyes:

ETA: As evidence of the association in people's minds between anal sex, gay men and fecal matter, you may like to read this entry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=marmite+mining) in the urban dictionary.

WARNING: Link contains words which are censored on the JREF.

arthwollipot
4th February 2010, 03:36 AM
I can't possibly imagine.:rolleyes:

ETA: As evidence of the association in people's minds between anal sex, gay men and fecal matter, you may like to read this entry (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=marmite+mining) in the urban dictionary.

WARNING: Link contains words which are censored on the JREF.Okay. Let's pretend that I concede this theoretical point. In all the times I have engaged in anal sex, never once has there been any poo. Nor is there any poo in the hundreds of thousands of anal sex videos that are on the internet.

So why do you think that anal sex has anything whatsoever to do with poo?

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 04:29 AM
Okay. Let's pretend that I concede this theoretical point. In all the times I have engaged in anal sex, never once has there been any poo. Nor is there any poo in the hundreds of thousands of anal sex videos that are on the internet.

So why do you think that anal sex has anything whatsoever to do with poo?

I bet you think there isn't any poo on your toothbrush either. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1317/does-flushing-the-toilet-cause-dirty-water-to-be-spewed-around-the-bathroom)

Marduk
4th February 2010, 04:32 AM
Yoink,

Got any evidence to suggest many people do not associate anal sex with "inappropriate and disgusting contact with fecal matter"?

No, I didn't think so.



well, not if you enema first, which is standard practice, did you know that ?

No, I didn't think so.
:rolleyes:

arthwollipot
4th February 2010, 04:51 AM
I bet you think there isn't any poo on your toothbrush either. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1317/does-flushing-the-toilet-cause-dirty-water-to-be-spewed-around-the-bathroom)Do you even know the difference between faeces and faecal coliform bacteria?

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 05:44 AM
well, not if you enema first, which is standard practice, did you know that ?

No, I didn't think so.
:rolleyes:

What has my knowledge of what you consider standard practice before engaging in anal sex have to do with my original point?

People associate the anus and rectum with fecal matter. People (in our culture at least) generally find the idea of coming into contact with fecal matter disgusting. They also associate gay men with having anal sex.

It is my hypothesis that the pairing of the strong negative emotion of disgust, evoked by the though of coming into contact with facal matter, with gay men engaging in anal sex is what makes gay men less socially acceptable than bisexual women and lesbians.

It is based on the idea of conditioned learning. The unconditioned stimulus is anal sex / fecal matter, the conditioned stimulus is gay men and the response is disgust.

There have been plenty of experiments which confirm evoking negative emotions along with a neutral or pleasant stimulus results in the neutral or pleasant stimulus becoming disliked.

Go learn something.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 05:47 AM
Do most people really give themselves enemas before having buttsecks? Really?

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 05:49 AM
Do most people really give themselves enemas before having buttsecks? Really?

I believe it's standard practice before going into the prison shower room.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 05:58 AM
Go learn something.

Irony meters aren't cheap you know.

KingMerv00
4th February 2010, 06:02 AM
But would such disgust keep you straight if you were in prison for the next 25 years of your life and had no chance to have sex other than with men?

ETA: Would disgust of patially consumed food in a rubbish bin stop you from eating it if you had few other options available to satiate your hunger?

Are you suggesting that gay men are gay because they couldn't get women if they tried?

Tsukasa Buddha
4th February 2010, 06:21 AM
Do you even know the difference between faeces and faecal coliform bacteria?

Do you deny that humans have innate disgust for people with clean teeth?

Tsukasa Buddha
4th February 2010, 06:28 AM
I believe it's standard practice before going into the prison shower room.

Rape is funny.

HansMustermann
4th February 2010, 06:46 AM
Rape is funny.

Only if it's Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd ;)

commandlinegamer
4th February 2010, 06:47 AM
I am not a biologist, but a quick search tells me that the rectum and anal canal together are about 16cm long, perhaps the length of a small to medium penis. The rectum is not constantly filled with fecal matter and if initial urge to defecate caused by the stretching of the rectal walls by the ingress of feces from the colon is not acted upon, said matter might even return to the colon. So I can see it being perfectly possible for no poo to be involved in anal sex. Bacteria is another matter.

Marduk
4th February 2010, 06:50 AM
What has my knowledge of what you consider standard practice before engaging in anal sex have to do with my original point?

People associate the anus and rectum with fecal matter. People (in our culture at least) generally find the idea of coming into contact with fecal matter disgusting. They also associate gay men with having anal sex.

It is my hypothesis that the pairing of the strong negative emotion of disgust, evoked by the though of coming into contact with facal matter, with gay men engaging in anal sex is what makes gay men less socially acceptable than bisexual women and lesbians.

It is based on the idea of conditioned learning. The unconditioned stimulus is anal sex / fecal matter, the conditioned stimulus is gay men and the response is disgust.

There have been plenty of experiments which confirm evoking negative emotions along with a neutral or pleasant stimulus results in the neutral or pleasant stimulus becoming disliked.

Go learn something.
Don't need to learn something, I frequently engage in anal sex with men and women and have an enema kit hanging up in my bathroom for that purpose
but just for you
1. Most people who end up with fecal matter on their penis aren't disgusted by it, they expected it was going to happen.
2. Most homosexuals do engage in anal sex and arent disgusted by it.
3. There is a fetish for scat lovers, its called coprophilia, they aren't disgusted by it either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia


you are overgeneralising to a shocking degree, have you ever engaged in anal sex, if not and its because you get scared when you come into contact with fecal matter then thats just you. Most people aren't that squeamish. This thread is about bisexual women, so why the huge interest in scat anyway.

;)

Marduk
4th February 2010, 06:54 AM
Do most people really give themselves enemas before having buttsecks? Really?

in my experience they don't. Someone usually does it for them, usually because anal sex is all about power and the people who are into it use it as part of a power exchange dynamic.
:p
but you'll find a whole lot about the popularity of enemas before anal coupling here
http://www.analsexyes.com/enemas.shtml

please do try it and let us know how you got on
extra points for clear photographs and videos over 5 minutes in length
:D

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 07:09 AM
Okay. Let's pretend that I concede this theoretical point. In all the times I have engaged in anal sex, never once has there been any poo. Nor is there any poo in the hundreds of thousands of anal sex videos that are on the internet.

So why do you think that anal sex has anything whatsoever to do with poo?

Well the porn videos use extensive anal douching to eliminate any unslightly issues. How nessacary such activities are for home use probably depends on how much one is worried about getting a little brown on the sheets.

A point to Ivor, with a healthy diet and someone who is not constipated or some such, there shouldn't be much if any fecal material in the rectum that is beign penetrated.

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 07:11 AM
Do most people really give themselves enemas before having buttsecks? Really?

In porn yes, in the real world, it depends on your feelings toward enemas and how much you worry about the possibility of a small amount of fecal material.

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 07:13 AM
Only if it's Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd ;)

"B'B'B'Bend over and SQ'SQ"Squeel like a P'P'P'Pig"

kellyb
4th February 2010, 07:14 AM
in my experience they don't. Someone usually does it for them, usually because anal sex is all about power and the people who are into it use it as part of a power exchange dynamic.
:p
but you'll find a whole lot about the popularity of enemas before anal coupling here
http://www.analsexyes.com/enemas.shtml

please do try it and let us know how you got on
extra points for clear photographs and videos over 5 minutes in length
:D

hahaha...

While I don't doubt this is the case for a certain subset of the population, I'm skeptical that it represents a majority of the population participating in teh buttsecks.
:p

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 07:15 AM
in my experience they don't. Someone usually does it for them, usually because anal sex is all about power and the people who are into it use it as part of a power exchange dynamic.

I think this might say more about your sexual practices than anal sex in general.

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 07:18 AM
hahaha...

While I don't doubt this is the case for a certain subset of the population, I'm skeptical that it represents a majority of the population participating in teh buttsecks.
:p

It would be interesting to see statistics on that. I have seen no surveys at all on the prevelance of enema's tied to anal sex. As they wash away anal mucus they are not with out problems on their own and can at times make anal sex more difficult.

HansMustermann
4th February 2010, 07:27 AM
"b'b'b'bend over and sq'sq"squeel like a p'p'p'pig"

roflmao

kellyb
4th February 2010, 07:36 AM
This thread is about bisexual women, so why the huge interest in scat anyway.

;)

I think the question of "Why is bisexuality in females celebrated and cheered on, whereas gay dudes are frowned upon comparatively?" is an interesting and valid question.

Ivor's taking a lot of, well, ****, ironically, in this thread for his hypothesis, that it involves an association with manpoop. While I don't understand the ~outrage~ over his hypothesis, I disagree with it. I think dudes cheer on hot chicks making out because they find it arousing for them. Dreams of threesomes. Female sexuality as a thing for the pleasure of men. Straight chicks don't object, (and indeed laff and pretend to find the whole thing amusing) because we're conditioned to not criticise the sexual behaviors of men.
Straight men (some, not all, or even necessarily most) are freaked out by gay dudes, because straight dudes are accustomed to being the objectifiers, and the persuers. Many openly talk about buying females drinks to increase the probabilities of getting laid, for example.
http://cdn.holytaco.com/www/sites/default/files/images/2009/Sex-on-a-Date-Flowchart.jpg
I think they might find it unnerving to be faced with the possibility of being "the hunted" instead of "the hunter".

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 07:43 AM
Well we've replaced 'stupid stereotypes about gay men' and 'stupid stereotypes about women' with 'stupid stereotypes about men.'

Seriously, this thread has brought out more brain damage than I thought possible.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 07:51 AM
Well we've replaced 'stupid stereotypes about gay men' and 'stupid stereotypes about women' with 'stupid stereotypes about men.'

Seriously, this thread has brought out more brain damage than I thought possible.

So what's your theory on why two hot chicks making out in a bar are more likely to draw positive attention, but two dudes more likely to draw negative attention?
Or do you disagree that this is the case in the first place?

Marduk
4th February 2010, 08:14 AM
I think this might say more about your sexual practices than anal sex in general.

uhuh, shows what you know doesn't it, there is a "community" you know, we do communicate with each other. Safe sex practices is always high on the list.
What this actually says more about is you once again pretending to be hetero yet posting in another non heterosexual thread as if you know something
NEWSFLASH
you don't
:D

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 08:16 AM
So what's your theory on why two hot chicks making out in a bar are more likely to draw positive attention, but two dudes more likely to draw negative attention?
Or do you disagree that this is the case in the first place?

Because the two hot chicks making out are probably doing it for the men's benefit, and yes, that's hot.

I've found that when two chicks are making out in a corner because they're really into eachother there's not much cheering.

Your basic assumption is that men are stupid, and can't tell the difference between something done a woman does for our benefit, and something a women does for herself. I assure you that is not the case. And it's downright rude not to cheer if they're putting on a show (do you not clap at the end of a play because it's rude to suggest the actors are putting it on for the audience).

Marduk
4th February 2010, 08:16 AM
It would be interesting to see statistics on that. I have seen no surveys at all on the prevelance of enema's tied to anal sex. As they wash away anal mucus they are not with out problems on their own and can at times make anal sex more difficult.

Jesus H Christ, youre still supposed to use lube. No wonder you've been having problems
you don't have the first idea of the main reason for an enema do you, you still think its all about the scat
:rolleyes:

kellyb
4th February 2010, 08:35 AM
Because the two hot chicks making out are probably doing it for the men's benefit, and yes, that's hot.

I've found that when two chicks are making out in a corner because they're really into eachother there's not much cheering.

Your basic assumption is that men are stupid, and can't tell the difference between something done a woman does for our benefit, and something a women does for herself. I assure you that is not the case. And it's downright rude not to cheer if they're putting on a show (do you not clap at the end of a play because it's rude to suggest the actors are putting it on for the audience).

Oh, so two hot chicks making out in a corner wouldn't attract positive attention in your opinion.

:rolleyes:

Marduk
4th February 2010, 08:36 AM
Because the two hot chicks making out are probably doing it for the men's benefit, and yes, that's hot.

I've found that when two chicks are making out in a corner because they're really into eachother there's not much cheering.

Your basic assumption is that men are stupid, and can't tell the difference between something done a woman does for our benefit, and something a women does for herself. I assure you that is not the case. And it's downright rude not to cheer if they're putting on a show (do you not clap at the end of a play because it's rude to suggest the actors are putting it on for the audience).
Is this a redneck bar youre describing ?
:D

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 08:38 AM
Oh, so two hot chicks making out in a corner wouldn't attract positive attention in your opinion.

:rolleyes: Not at the bars I frequent, no. Maybe a whistle from someone whose really drunk. If you're in a bar where people tend to make out in corners, no one really cares.

But yes, in general, men can really tell the difference. But here, have your :rolleyes: back at the idea that a man can't tell the difference between a show and genuine interest.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 08:42 AM
Not at the bars I frequent, no. Maybe a whistle from someone whose really drunk.

I don't believe you. There are whispers and stares at least.


Why do you think straight dudes feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes make out? Do you think it's potentially dangerous for a gay dude to hit on a guy in a bar not knowing if he's straight or gay?

Marduk
4th February 2010, 08:48 AM
Do you think it's potentially dangerous for a gay dude to hit on a guy in a bar not knowing if he's straight or gay?

apparently he can get round this by asking if the straight guy is revolted by "fecal matter"
:D

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 08:49 AM
I don't believe you. There are whispers and stares at least.

Yes, I'm sure your prejudice is a good basis for making observations.

Once again, do you really think guys don't know the difference between a show put on for our benefit and the genuine thing? You've dodged this question three times now, so I am beginning to wonder if it is intentional (that's rhetorical. I know it's intentional).


Why do you think straight dudes feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes make out? I personally don't. So your question is already guilty of, well, begging the question.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Care to rephrase it? Preferably not in a manner that leads me to ask "have you stopped beating your wife?"

Do you think it's potentially dangerous for a gay dude to hit on a guy in a bar not knowing if he's straight or gay? Potentially? Sure.

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 09:00 AM
uhuh, shows what you know doesn't it, there is a "community" you know, we do communicate with each other. Safe sex practices is always high on the list.

???

I was speaking to that if you have primarily DS sexual encounters, and that the power dynamics you see are possibly a result of that. You seemed to be speaking to anal sex in a DS sexual event, not anal sex in a more vanillia sexual event.

What this actually says more about is you once again pretending to be hetero yet posting in another non heterosexual thread as if you know something
NEWSFLASH
you don't
:D

So we are undermining the whole point that there are far more heterosexual anal sex practitioners than homosexual or bisexual ones?

kellyb
4th February 2010, 09:18 AM
Yes, I'm sure your prejudice is a good basis for making observations.

Once again, do you really think guys don't know the difference between a show put on for our benefit and the genuine thing?




You've dodged this question three times now, so I am beginning to wonder if it is intentional (that's rhetorical. I know it's intentional).



It's a strawman, because I never claimed that men were unable to tell when girls make out with each other in public just to attract the attention of and please strange men. Girls can tell when that's what's happening, so why not guys? Some of us have even felt a vague pressure from other girls and guys alike to engage in that behavior ourselves, or faced ridicule for objecting to it. Very odd phenomenon, indeed. I'm sure it has nothing to do with our patriarchal society, though.

And I've never seen girls quietly getting it on in the corner without dudes signaling to each other and pointing and nodding in the direction of the action. So I believe my anecdotal evidence trumps your in my mind. Sorry.


I personally don't. So your question is already guilty of, well, begging the question.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
Care to rephrase it? Preferably not in a manner that leads me to ask "have you stopped beating your wife?"


Why do you think you're representative of men in general?

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/Comeout97.PDF

...most respondents expressed negative attitudes towards gay men, with a majority agreeing that "Sex between two men is just plain wrong." and that "I think male homosexuals are disgusting." Only a minority agreed that "Male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in men."

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 09:25 AM
It's a strawman, because I never claimed that men were unable to tell when girls make out with each other in public just to attract the attention of and please strange men. Girls can tell when that's what's happening, so why not guys? Some of us have even felt a vague pressure from other girls and guys alike to engage in that behavior ourselves, or faced ridicule for objecting to it. Very odd phenomenon, indeed. I'm sure it has nothing to do with our patriarchal society, though.

Hmm, this makes me realize that I never when to that kind of party.

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 09:29 AM
Jesus H Christ, youre still supposed to use lube. No wonder you've been having problems
you don't have the first idea of the main reason for an enema do you, you still think its all about the scat
:rolleyes:

Where did I say anything about not using lube? The point is that removing all the natural mucus is something some people find irritating, so even with lots of lube it can cause discomfort.

Also, I think that in your case it is about submission as much as cleaning. Fine if that is what you are into. But you are making rather the same assumptions that others make that the kind of sex you have is the sex everyone has or wants to have. You demonstrated this by linking anal sex in a fundamental fashion to dominance and submission. They might be tied together in your head and in your life, but they are not in everyones head and life.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 09:33 AM
It's a strawman, because I never claimed that men were unable to tell when girls make out with each other in public just to attract the attention of and please strange men. Girls can tell when that's what's happening, so why not guys? Some of us have even felt a vague pressure from other girls and guys alike to engage in that behavior ourselves, or faced ridicule for objecting to it. Very odd phenomenon, indeed. I'm sure it has nothing to do with our patriarchal society, though.

Ah. I had a feeling the patriarchy would come into this eventually.

As for ridicule for objecting, yes. I'd ridicule you. Lets see. Two girls are putting on a show. Are they being forced? No. Did you choose to come to a location where you knew that might happen? Probably. Do they object to the attention? No. Are you ridiculous for suggesting that there's something objectionable about this, or that they should stop doing something that they're enjoying? Yeah.

As for strawman, no, I'd say the entire fact that it's a show is central to undercutting this little inanity you have rolling here. Since it's a show, and the guys know it's a show, why is it that its objectionable that they appreciate the show?

Oh that's right. It's not.

And I've never seen girls quietly getting it on in the corner without dudes signaling to each other and pointing and nodding in the direction of the action. So I believe my anecdotal evidence trumps your in my mind. Sorry.
I've seen enthusiastic makeout sessions get attention, whatever the genders are. But I notice at this point we've moved from 'applause' to nudges and a few looks. It's nice to see this patriarchy evolving here.


Why do you think you're representative of men in general?ROFL

I'm not. In fact, no one is. But I am part of the subset of men. Your statement included all of us. Every single one. Even one counterexample undercuts your entire premise.

So, once again, care to try again? Or is logic part of the patriarchy?

P.S. Why do women always act illogically?

kellyb
4th February 2010, 09:35 AM
Hmm, this makes me realize that I never when to that kind of party.
I should write a book.
"Anthropological Observations of a Dork's Infiltration of the Cool Kids Club".
:p

Marduk
4th February 2010, 09:37 AM
Where did I say anything about not using lube? The point is that removing all the natural mucus is something some people find irritating, so even with lots of lube it can cause discomfort.

then you need to look up the word Lube and see why that doesn't happen
perhaps this page from columbia edu will help
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/3426.html

Also, I think that in your case it is about submission as much as cleaning. Fine if that is what you are into. But you are making rather the same assumptions that others make that the kind of sex you have is the sex everyone has or wants to have.
you keep attempting to claim that I am only talking about my experience, but what I know is gained from the experience of hundreds of people who I have talked to in depth about a wide variety of kink related topics. I am not just a professional on the UK M/s D/s BDSM scene, I am also a professional on the LGBT scene as well, in fact I am currently employed at a LGBT club

if you knew much about this subject youd know that the main point of an enema is to untwist the colon and to gently stretch it making the insertion of a foreign object much more comfortable, its not really about the cleaning unless you are really adverse to "fecal matter", I think you'll find that most people who regularly engage in anal sex don't give a s***
:p

ponderingturtle
4th February 2010, 09:37 AM
I should write a book.
"Anthropological Observations of a Dork's Infiltration of the Cool Kids Club".
:p

My problem is that I really do not tolerate loud enviroments, especialy loud music well at all. So the cry would go up for the girls and it would make me want to kill the crowd for being too damn loud.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 09:44 AM
Ah. I had a feeling the patriarchy would come into this eventually.

You're smart. It was my mention of a "feminism based hypothesis" that clued you in, wasn't it?

So, do you not believe in the patriarchy?

I'm not. In fact, no one is. But I am part of the subset of men. Your statement included all of us. Every single one. Even one counterexample undercuts your entire premise.

Actually, initially I said:

So what's your theory on why two hot chicks making out in a bar are more likely to draw positive attention, but two dudes more likely to draw negative attention?

You have no problem admitting the first part is true (hot chicks making out attract positive attention), but are doing an admirable song and dance to avoid admitting the second part is true (gay dudes being openly gay are comparatively more likely to attract negative attention).

Why?

Yoink
4th February 2010, 09:44 AM
Ah, you referred to something. You think referring to something is the same as providing evidence?

WTF? That's the most desperate grasping at straws I've ever seen. I referred to a fact about the world--a fact that you can easily verify by going to any website or brick-and-mortar store that sells pornographic movies designed to appeal to a heterosexual audience. If you do that you will find that a very high percentage of those films include heterosexual anal sex.

If your objection is that I haven't gone out and purchased a cross section of those films and mailed them to you for your personal study all I can say is that I am so sorry for your disappointment.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 10:20 AM
You're smart. It was my mention of a "feminism based hypothesis" that clued you in, wasn't it?

So, do you not believe in the patriarchy?
A patriarchy is a system of government by males, characterized by a social system where men are dominant.

What, exactly, is the question? Do I believe such a system violates physical laws (like frictionless surfaces)? Do I believe it is superior to non-patriarchal systems? Do I believe that the current society of the United States of America can be described accurately as a patriarchy?

Something I've noticed is that you don't quite seem to know what question you're asking.

Actually, initially I said:



You have no problem admitting the first part is true (hot chicks making out attract positive attention), but are doing an admirable song and dance to avoid admitting the second part is true (gay dudes being openly gay are comparatively more likely to attract negative attention).

Why? I'm doing neither. I'm suggesting your theories on why are flaming bullcrap, and highlighting the extreme flaws in your methods of thought. For instance, even asking the question: "Why do you think straight dudes feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes make out?" is pretty painful. To follow it up with "Why do you think you're representative of men in general?" when I point out the flaws is ridiculous.

We can't even discuss this if you cannot define what questions you're asking, and you manifestly can't.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 11:00 AM
A patriarchy is a system of government by males, characterized by a social system where men are dominant.

What, exactly, is the question? Do I believe such a system violates physical laws (like frictionless surfaces)? Do I believe it is superior to non-patriarchal systems? Do I believe that the current society of the United States of America can be described accurately as a patriarchy?

Something I've noticed is that you don't quite seem to know what question you're asking.

I asked if you believed in "the patriarchy".

What "patriarchy" were you referring to when you said:

Ah. I had a feeling the patriarchy would come into this eventually.

And:

Or is logic part of the patriarchy?

Are you going to retreat into feigning an even greater degree of ignorance than that which you genuinely possess? If so, this conversation is pointless.


I'm doing neither. I'm suggesting your theories on why are flaming bullcrap, and highlighting the extreme flaws in your methods of thought. For instance, even asking the question: "Why do you think straight dudes feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes make out?" is pretty painful.

I meant men in general, not men without exception, and that was clear from my initial post on the subject.

Do you disagree that men in general feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes making out?
If so, can you present any evidence? (beyond "Well, I don't personally, so that means yer wrong!")?

HansMustermann
4th February 2010, 11:07 AM
So, do you not believe in the patriarchy?

Depends on whether you go by what the word actually means to the rest of the world, or just to the feminist redefinition.

"Patriarchy" used to mean literally the head of the family (you know, the "pater" in "patriarchy") having legal jurisdiction over the women and children, and to various degrees over any associated property and dependents, such as slaves, servants, freedmen, etc. See the Greek system as described by Aristotle, for example. Or the early Roman concept of Pater Familias (by Empire times, women had become a lot less subservient.)

The power could extend to such (mind-boggling by modern standards) degrees as the right and authority of a Pater Familias to sell his children into slavery, or to kill a newborn baby if deemed unfit. By his own opinion and authority. Children could not even marry and become a head of a family on their own without their father's approval, could not have any property of their own (if any of them, say, bought a piece of land, it would automatically become a part of the property owned by the Pater Familias), etc, unless explicitly freed by their father... which incidentally also meant automatically disinherited.

By extension, it was used for the chief of a clan, in much the same way. Clans being defined and justified by some (real or mythical) common ancestry, and thus an (uber-)extended family, the head of the clan took the role of basically a head of the family. It required very little philosophy or legal thought to extrapolate from the nearly absolute rights the male head of the family had over his wife and his children, to nearly the same rights afforded to a clan chief over his clan members.

That kind of usage gave us the church use of "patriarch", though in this case more of a case of self-importance and wishful thinking, than actually having similar rights over the congregation.

Do I believe that such a system still exists in the western world? No, and certainly not de jure.

Do I believe that men somehow rule everything and are to blame for everything, including whether you feel expected to give a show to some guy in a bar? No, not really. I don't think he has any power, de jure or de facto, to actually make you do anything. I.e., it stretches the whole "archy" or rather "arkhe" ("rule") part to silly extremes.

Do I think that males still have some de facto advantages in the western culture? Yes.

Do I think that feeling pressured to do anything -- but in the absence of any actual power or authority to make you do anything -- is something blamable on patriarchy? No, not really. As I was saying "rule" tends to mean something more concrete than that in any other use of that suffix. E.g., an "oligarchy" means that the few have some codified privileges or rights, not just someone's feeling like pleasing the elite in some way. At some point you simply have to decide for yourself which pressures you give in to and which not, same as everyone else.

Basically I'm prepared to include stuff like getting less pay for less work, or being excluded from certain jobs, or whatnot, as disadvantages or penalties that society can still impose. But getting less attention from a guy than the girls who make out, meh.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 11:28 AM
I asked if you believed in "the patriarchy".

What "patriarchy" were you referring to when you said:

And:

Are you going to retreat into feigning an even greater degree of ignorance than that which you genuinely possess? If so, this conversation is pointless.
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who referred to it. In general, I take references to 'the Patriarchy' about as seriously as references to 'the Templars.' If you agree that these references are nonsense, we can discard the entire concept from this discussion, it probably should never have come up in the first place.





I meant men in general, not men without exception, and that was clear from my initial post on the subject.


Do you disagree that men in general feel uncomfortable seeing gay dudes making out?
If so, can you present any evidence? (beyond "Well, I don't personally, so that means yer wrong!")?No. No, it was not clear. You made a sweeping characterization about an entire gender, and then asked me to explain why an entire gender was uniform in its feelings.

As for why 'in general' people feel that way, I'd say the general answer would be simple: religion.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=37

Beyond that, we're reasonably deep into the realm of speculation and stereotype. I'm not sure what you're looking for there, but neither are you.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 11:44 AM
WTF? That's the most desperate grasping at straws I've ever seen. I referred to a fact about the world--a fact that you can easily verify by going to any website or brick-and-mortar store that sells pornographic movies designed to appeal to a heterosexual audience. If you do that you will find that a very high percentage of those films include heterosexual anal sex.

If your objection is that I haven't gone out and purchased a cross section of those films and mailed them to you for your personal study all I can say is that I am so sorry for your disappointment.

You think anal sex as seen in porno films is an accurate reflection of reality?

It's sanitised fantasy.

Anyhow, I think it's pointless continuing this discussion because it's not going to move on to the more interesting topics of the incentives and other social/psychological factors which might influence sexual behaviour.

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 11:50 AM
You think anal sex as seen in porno films is an accurate reflection of reality?

It's sanitised fantasy.

Anyhow, I think it's pointless continuing this discussion because it's not going to move on to the more interesting topics of the incentives and other social/psychological factors which might influence sexual behaviour.

Either way, people are obviously not grossed out by anal sex if they are fantasizing about it.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 12:15 PM
You think anal sex as seen in porno films is an accurate reflection of reality?

It's sanitised fantasy.

Anyhow, I think it's pointless continuing this discussion because it's not going to move on to the more interesting topics of the incentives and other social/psychological factors which might influence sexual behaviour.

Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that porno films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that anal sex features prominently in mainstream heterosexual pornography demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of heterosexual males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find anal sex inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely arousing--so long as it involves heterosexual rather than homosexual partners.

Now, there is exactly the same risk of "disgusting" exposure to "fecal matter" in heterosexual anal sex as in homosexual anal sex (i.e., very little), so that also conclusively proves that your theory as to the origins of the widespread social disapproval of homosexuality is false.

Q.E.D.

(And am I surprised that you're running away from this argument? No, I am not.)

kellyb
4th February 2010, 12:26 PM
I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who referred to it. In general, I take references to 'the Patriarchy' about as seriously as references to 'the Templars.' If you agree that these references are nonsense, we can discard the entire concept from this discussion, it probably should never have come up in the first place.




You think "the patriarchy" referred to here is nonsense?

http://aeq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/142

Homosexuality is seen as a threat to the stability of the patriarchy. Behavior viewed as threatening the statability of a culture will be met with resistance. This type of resistance is present when faculty refuse to teach gay sexuality in a positive light because th e faculty member's "values system" is being violated. The value system being used stresses the importance of patriarchy. When gays and lesbians have intimacy with people of the same sex, this violates the the norms of patriarchal sex appropriate behavior. The data which supports the aforementioned finding is based in the knowledge that educational institutions treat gay and lesbian students as second class because of the ignorance and lack of motivation to correct the problem. Motivation is lacking because society has firmly entrenched the ideals of a patriarchal societal structure. Anything deemed as contrary to patriarchy will be suppressed to the best of the majority's ability. In the article, this type of suppression is mentioned repeatedly as a way to ensure that homosexuality does not threaten the patriarchal value system we have learned to operate within.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j1014v5q381n53r6/

Threatening the Patriarchy: Testing an Explanatory Paradigm of Anti-lesbian Attitudes

Abstract There has been relatively little research on heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians that has utilized the considerable amount of feminist scholarship on the topic. The present study examined an explanatory paradigm derived from Pharr (Homophobia: A weapon of sexism, Chardon, Inverness, CA, USA, 1988) that considers defined norm, sexism, economic beliefs, and attitudes toward institutional violence to be associated with anti-lesbian attitudes. Using data from 365 heterosexual undergraduates from the Midwestern USA, the results of a structural equation modeling analysis found support for Pharr’s paradigm and suggest several directions for future research on anti-lesbian attitudes.

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 12:30 PM
I think a better reason why heterosexual males find lesbian sex more appealing and male on male sex less so is because of empathy. We can not help but put our self in the shoes of the people we observe. In the case of viewing two attractive lesbians going at it, well, I wouldn't mind being in either of their shoes.
But when imagining homosexual male sex, you can't help but imagine yourself as one of the partners, and that is not a thought most heterosexual males like to have in their head. I really don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 12:37 PM
You think "the patriarchy" referred to here is nonsense?

http://aeq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/45/3/142



http://www.springerlink.com/content/j1014v5q381n53r6/
Huh, let me see.

YES (http://www.nesh.com/main/nejh/samples/winston.html)

Yoink
4th February 2010, 12:38 PM
I think a better reason why heterosexual males find lesbian sex more appealing and male on male sex less so is because of empathy. We can not help but put our self in the shoes of the people we observe. In the case of viewing two attractive lesbians going at it, well, I wouldn't mind being in either of their shoes.
But when imagining homosexual male sex, you can't help but imagine yourself as one of the partners, and that is not a thought most heterosexual males like to have in their head. I really don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

I remember an episode of Mad About You in which exactly that explanation was given in response to the question "what is it with men and lesbian porn?": "two beautiful women, and I agree with both of them!"

I think you're right, in general, that that's why men enjoy lesbian sex (and why many women enjoy man-on-man sex); it doesn't, of course, explain the overt hostility that many man show to any display of male homosexual sex.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 12:49 PM
By the way, there's another whole angle of approach to Ivor the Engineer's asinine argument that hasn't yet been explored.

Let's break his argument down into its component pieces again:

1/ The idea of contact with fecal matter is disgusting.
2/ People who are associated in our minds with contact with fecal matter become disgusting to us by association.
3/ Homosexuals are associated in our minds with contact with fecal matter because of anal sex.

Now, when I think about the question "what kind of person is likely to come into unusual and direct contact with fecal matter" the very first image that comes to my mind is "parents of young babies." The only gay person likely to see as much **** on any part of their person in a lifetime as your average parent of a young baby sees in a week is a gay coprophiliac.

So: let us see. Does Ivor the Engineer's argument hold up? Does society shun parents of young babies? Do we regard them as objects of disgust? Are they routinely the object of legal discrimination or hate crimes?

Hmmm...seems like there might be a teensy tiny flaw or two in Ivor the Engineer's argument.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 12:56 PM
Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that porno films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that anal sex features prominently in mainstream heterosexual pornography demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of heterosexual males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find anal sex inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely arousing--so long as it involves heterosexual rather than homosexual partners.

<snip>

Let's try that with a few modifications:

Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that mainstream hollywood films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that graphic sadistic violence features prominently in mainstream Hollywood movies demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find sadistic violence inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely enjoyable--so long as it involves someone else on a screen rather than them.

You really don't have a clue, Yoink.

Here's my final gift to you: some actual evidence!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 12:56 PM
I think you're right, in general, that that's why men enjoy lesbian sex (and why many women enjoy man-on-man sex); it doesn't, of course, explain the overt hostility that many man show to any display of male homosexual sex.

My guess is that those men aren't secure in their sexuality, and are afraid by what is going on in their minds, and are angry at the source of those thoughts.

No experience in psychology though.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:00 PM
By the way, there's another whole angle of approach to Ivor the Engineer's asinine argument that hasn't yet been explored.

Let's break his argument down into its component pieces again:

1/ The idea of contact with fecal matter is disgusting.
2/ People who are associated in our minds with contact with fecal matter become disgusting to us by association.
3/ Homosexuals are associated in our minds with contact with fecal matter because of anal sex.

Now, when I think about the question "what kind of person is likely to come into unusual and direct contact with fecal matter" the very first image that comes to my mind is "parents of young babies." The only gay person likely to see as much **** on any part of their person in a lifetime as your average parent of a young baby sees in a week is a gay coprophiliac.

So: let us see. Does Ivor the Engineer's argument hold up? Does society shun parents of young babies? Do we regard them as objects of disgust? Are they routinely the object of legal discrimination or hate crimes?

Hmmm...seems like there might be a teensy tiny flaw or two in Ivor the Engineer's argument.

You should have seen the reaction my brother in law had to a tiny bit of crap getting on his finger while changing his son's nappy.

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 01:01 PM
Let's try that with a few modifications:

Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that mainstream hollywood films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that graphic sadistic violence features prominently in mainstream Hollywood movies demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find sadistic violence inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely enjoyable--so long as it involves someone else on a screen rather than them.

You really don't have a clue, Yoink.

Here's my final gift to you: some actual evidence!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

When I watch a horror movie, I don't spend the entire time watching vividly imagining myself as the villain chopping people up.
And there is a VAST difference between real people being chopped up, and fake violence on a movie.
I find movie violence to be humorous usually, but watching a video on youtube of someone falling and breaking their arm makes me cringe and quickly click away.
Not the same with porn videos, which are all real. And if you say that they are overproduced, then you must not be aware of the HUGE market for amature videos, literally just people with their own camcorders.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 01:06 PM
Let's try that with a few modifications:

Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that mainstream hollywood films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that graphic sadistic violence features prominently in mainstream Hollywood movies demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find sadistic violence inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely enjoyable--so long as it involves someone else on a screen rather than them.

You really don't have a clue, Yoink.

Here's my final gift to you: some actual evidence!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

Wow. This might just be the worst use of Google ever. Ivor links to a study that demonstrates that 60% of men who have had homosexual encounters had anal sex versus 40% of the general population as a whole.

That extra 20% apparently completely defines the sexuality for him.

I'm trying to come up with words to describe this. Anyone?

Yoink
4th February 2010, 01:14 PM
Let's try that with a few modifications:

Why not try reading what I wrote rather than trying to guess? I didn't say that mainstream hollywood films are "an accurate reflection of reality" I said that the fact that graphic sadistic violence features prominently in mainstream Hollywood movies demonstrates (and demonstrates conclusively) that the vast majority of males (the very people these films are designed to arouse, and without whose patronage these films would not be profitable) do not find sadistic violence inherently disgusting. Rather, they find it extremely enjoyable--so long as it involves someone else on a screen rather than them.

You really don't have a clue, Yoink.

Here's my final gift to you: some actual evidence!

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf

You're comparing apples with oranges, Ivor, and you're also mischaracterizing the apples. "Graphic sadistic violence" is not a pervasive feature of Hollywood movies (it has nothing remotely like the ubiquity of anal sex in mainstream heterosexual porn). Yes, there is a market for it (horror movies like the Saw series and so forth), but you will also notice that there is an entire discourse around these films as being controversial, sickening, etc. And, most importantly, nobody goes to those films thinking that they are witnessing actual torture. What they think they are witnessing is a very clever simulacrum of torture.

None of this applies to anal sex in pornographic films. For one thing, the whole point of pornography is that you are seeing what is actually happening. None of this is simulated. For another thing, although there certainly is a market for "gross out" porn of various kinds (violent, abusive, degrading etc.) that is decidedly a niche market. If you go to a website that shows a lot of clips of porn films and look at the comments on such clips you'll see a lot of people saying "OMG, that's revolting! How can you enjoy something like that" etc.

Mainstream pornography (again, unlike fictional movies) is designed to provide material for sexual fantasies based on projected participation in the activities you are witness to. The basic underlying logic of porn is "imagine what it would be like if YOU were doing this!" and, furthermore, the product of that process of imaginative projection is meant to be arousal, not disgust. In other words, you imagine participating in the behavior you witness and you think "yeah, that would be cool!" not "ugh, that would be disgusting!"

Again, go to a site like redtube.com or pornhub.com and look at some of the highest rated clips. You won't have to look at far to find clips featuring anal sex. Look at the comments. You'll have to look at hundreds of clips before you find a comment like "anal sex!!! That's disgusting! I might get poo on my dong!!!" What you will find is lots and lots and lots of comments by people about how sexy the clip is or what a turn on they found it or what a babe the actress is or what they would do to her if they only could etc. etc. etc. and nary an expression of "disgust" at anal sex in sight. And remember, these are porn sites that cater to the general public (not to some special niche of anal sex fans). They make their money of the advertising dollars they can get from getting people to click on their site and watch the clips they show. Their whole mission is to try to show clips that appeal to as broad a cross-section of the general public as possible.

Face it, Ivor, you are just simply, obviously and demonstrably wrong.

ETA: Q.E.D.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 01:18 PM
You should have seen the reaction my brother in law had to a tiny bit of crap getting on his finger while changing his son's nappy.

So you are trying to defend the thesis that society at large finds parents of young children disgusting?

And remember, not only do we associate parents of babies with close and regular contact with faeces, we also associate them with getting regularly covered in vomit (something which I, personally, find far more disgusting than crap). By your logic, parents of young babies should be the most widely reviled social group in the world.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 01:21 PM
Wow. This might just be the worst use of Google ever. Ivor links to a study that demonstrates that 60% of men who have had homosexual encounters had anal sex versus 40% of the general population as a whole.

That extra 20% apparently completely defines the sexuality for him.

I'm trying to come up with words to describe this. Anyone?

High precision bigotry?

ETA: I thought of "low tolerance bigotry" but that just sounds redundant.

tesscaline
4th February 2010, 01:40 PM
High precision bigotry?Yup, pretty much.

ETA: I thought of "low tolerance bigotry" but that just sounds redundant.Haha :D

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:41 PM
Thinking about it, the sanitised anal sex in some heterosexual pornography may be partly responsible for the increase in the number of heterosexual people who have tried it.

For example, the military train recruits to kill people by using human looking targets that don't bleed or scream.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 01:47 PM
Thinking about it, the sanitised anal sex in some heterosexual pornography may be partly responsible for the increase in the number of heterosexual people who have tried it.

For example, the military train recruits to kill people by using human looking targets that don't bleed or scream.

No they don't. But we can add 'military training' to the list of things you don't understand.

tesscaline
4th February 2010, 01:49 PM
Thinking about it, the sanitised anal sex in some heterosexual pornography may be partly responsible for the increase in the number of heterosexual people who have tried it.

For example, the military train recruits to kill people by using human looking targets that don't bleed or scream.The anal sex in heterosexual pornography has not been sanitized. It's just as messy (if not more so -- some of you know what I mean, and I'm not going into detail for those who don't) as the anal sex people have in their own homes. It's just that you have some sort of weird perception that anal sex = poo everywhere, when it doesn't.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 01:49 PM
Thinking about it, the sanitised anal sex in some heterosexual pornography may be partly responsible for the increase in the number of heterosexual people who have tried it.

For example, the military train recruits to kill people by using human looking targets that don't bleed or scream.

Ivor...have you actually ever watched any porn? I mean, any...ever?

You seem to be under the (bizarre) misconception that mainstream porn is subject to vast post-production digital manipulation or something. Most mainstream porn is the product of a handheld video camera and subject to almost no editing. If it's really high-budget you might have a couple of cameras and the film might get a bit of post production to gussie up the lighting and color and so forth--but basically what you see is what happened. It's not "sanitized" in any of the senses you seem to be imagining. Certainly if you want to know--very explicitly and very graphically--what it looks like for a man to anally penetrate a woman, then porn movies will show it to you. You can go to any one of a hundred free websites right now and it will take you about 15 minutes to find that I'm right about this.

I do love this image that you have, though, of teams of digital artists carefully removing any signs of poo from the hero's schlong before releasing "Assbusters #56" to the public.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:51 PM
<snip>

None of this applies to anal sex in pornographic films. For one thing, the whole point of pornography is that you are seeing what is actually happening. None of this is simulated.

<snip>

LOL!

Yeah, those moans of pleasure are real.

And they really are lesbians when the camera isn't on.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 01:54 PM
Do I believe that such a system still exists in the western world? No, and certainly not de jure.

Do I believe that men somehow rule everything and are to blame for everything, including whether you feel expected to give a show to some guy in a bar? No, not really. I don't think he has any power, de jure or de facto, to actually make you do anything. I.e., it stretches the whole "archy" or rather "arkhe" ("rule") part to silly extremes.

Do I think that males still have some de facto advantages in the western culture? Yes.

Do I think that feeling pressured to do anything -- but in the absence of any actual power or authority to make you do anything -- is something blamable on patriarchy? No, not really. As I was saying "rule" tends to mean something more concrete than that in any other use of that suffix. E.g., an "oligarchy" means that the few have some codified privileges or rights, not just someone's feeling like pleasing the elite in some way. At some point you simply have to decide for yourself which pressures you give in to and which not, same as everyone else.

Basically I'm prepared to include stuff like getting less pay for less work, or being excluded from certain jobs, or whatnot, as disadvantages or penalties that society can still impose. But getting less attention from a guy than the girls who make out, meh.


I don't really disagree with your POV too much. The thing which perplexed me about the "girls making out with other girls to please the guys" phenomenon was the fact that the pressure to engage in the activity was coming from other girls, even though it was a behavior we all felt ambivalent about. It was almost like we derived a sense of power from being on the side of the (percieved as more powerful) menfolk.

I'm not a radical feminist, because I am a skeptic, but I'm a moderate feminist who believes that "the patriarchy" is still "real" (though often blown out of proportion), because I am a skeptic. For example, I work in a male dominated industry, and would probably eventually get fired if I made a fuss over the never-ending sexist jokes and offensive commentaries about female body parts I hear from co-workers. I have to just laugh and hide the fact that I'm offended to survive professionally. It's not "right"; it just is what it is. Life as a chick in Dude Nation.
Similarly, for teenage girls to survive socially in most social circles, to be "cool", you have to pretend to not be offended by the sexist behaviors of the guys.

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 01:56 PM
LOL!

Yeah, those moans of pleasure are real.

And they really are lesbians when the camera isn't on.

:bwall

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 01:58 PM
Ivor...have you actually ever watched any porn? I mean, any...ever?

You seem to be under the (bizarre) misconception that mainstream porn is subject to vast post-production digital manipulation or something. Most mainstream porn is the product of a handheld video camera and subject to almost no editing. If it's really high-budget you might have a couple of cameras and the film might get a bit of post production to gussie up the lighting and color and so forth--but basically what you see is what happened. It's not "sanitized" in any of the senses you seem to be imagining. Certainly if you want to know--very explicitly and very graphically--what it looks like for a man to anally penetrate a woman, then porn movies will show it to you. You can go to any one of a hundred free websites right now and it will take you about 15 minutes to find that I'm right about this.

I do love this image that you have, though, of teams of digital artists carefully removing any signs of poo from the hero's schlong before releasing "Assbusters #56" to the public.

Evidence to the contrary, courtesy of Dan Savage:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/columns/savage-love/Content?oid=29323

Ben Scuglia, editor of Inside Porn magazine.

"Gay-porn bottoms take a nice dump, AND they clear the pipes with a nice, relaxing douche." Ben recommends Fleet, a disposable enema kit.

"Porn buttholes are so clean-clean-clean you could eat off them," Ben continues--and you can see people doing just that in almost all porn videos. "Porn is all about squeaky-clean fantasy; even the 'dirty' stuff is supervised and choreographed. Nothing droops a **** faster than santorum slopping all over the damn place, so porn bottoms make sure they're clean as a whistle. Sure, sometimes a **** dislodges something, but that footage ends up on the cutting-room floor."

Third Eye Open
4th February 2010, 01:58 PM
I don't really disagree with your POV too much. The thing which perplexed me about the "girls making out with other girls to please the guys" phenomenon was the fact that the pressure to engage in the activity was coming from other girls, even though it was a behavior we all felt ambivalent about. It was almost like we derived a sense of power from being on the side of the (percieved as more powerful) menfolk.

I'm not a radical feminist, because I am a skeptic, but I'm a moderate feminist who believes that "the patriarchy" is still "real" (though often blown out of proportion), because I am a skeptic. For example, I work in a male dominated industry, and would probably eventually get fired if I made a fuss over the never-ending sexist jokes and offensive commentaries about female body parts I hear from co-workers. I have to just laugh and hide the fact that I'm offended to survive professionally. It's not "right"; it just is what it is. Life as a chick in Dude Nation.
Similarly, for teenage girls to survive socially in most social circles, to be "cool", you have to pretend to not be offended by the sexist behaviors of the guys.

You must not work in America. In my experience you can be fired for looking at someone wrong if it is seen as offensive.

I don't think you would be the one being fired if you brought up these sexist jokes.

The Fallen Serpent
4th February 2010, 01:59 PM
I do find anal sex disgusting but I do not find homosexual men disgusting. I know this is not the "general" or "average" position but I would rather watch two men make out then watch a man anally penetrate a woman. Thinking about anal sex reminds me of changing diapers. When growing up I thought homosexuality was bad because when I was seven I was accused by an adult of being a homosexual then my mother told me she would love even if I was homosexual. At first my confused mind connected homo with home and I thought homosexuality might be incest, but while the adults explained it wasn't incent they wouldn't tell me what homosexuality actually was. When I found out what homosexuality was on the playground I was more confused but just blindly trusted the parental indication that it was bad. Eventually I got over thinking that just because my mother thinks something is bad that it must be so.

I suspect social conditioning for most current prejudices, with the caveat that without such social conditioning it is easy for people to fear that which is different from themselves and therefore villify it.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 02:02 PM
<snip>

I'm not a radical feminist, because I am a skeptic, but I'm a moderate feminist who believes that "the patriarchy" is still "real" (though often blown out of proportion), because I am a skeptic.

<snip>

How often should the patriarchy be blown?

kellyb
4th February 2010, 02:02 PM
I think a better reason why heterosexual males find lesbian sex more appealing and male on male sex less so is because of empathy. We can not help but put our self in the shoes of the people we observe. In the case of viewing two attractive lesbians going at it, well, I wouldn't mind being in either of their shoes.
But when imagining homosexual male sex, you can't help but imagine yourself as one of the partners, and that is not a thought most heterosexual males like to have in their head. I really don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

If it's that simple, then why dobn't heterosexual women react to lesbians in the same way?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_36/ai_58459536/


Meta-analyses of the research literature on heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuality indicate that heterosexual men and women react differently to homosexuality. Heterosexual men generally manifest higher levels of sexual prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes toward homosexual persons) than do heterosexual women. This difference results mainly from heterosexual men's attitudes toward homosexual men, which are consistently more negative than both their attitudes toward lesbians and heterosexual women's attitudes toward either lesbians or gay men (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996). Although much of the research upon which this conclusion is based was conducted with convenience samples of college students, the finding has been replicated in at least one national probability sample (Herek & Capitanio, 1996) for White (but not Black) respondents (Herek & Capitanio, 1995).

Various explanations have been offered for this pattern, including differential demands on men and women created by gender roles (Herek, 1986; Kite & Whitley, 1998), sex differences in levels of defensiveness and threat associated with homosexuality (Herek, 1986, 1988), unequal opportunities for interpersonal contact with lesbians and gay men (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), and the eroticizing of lesbians by heterosexual men (Louderback & Whitley, 1997). These explanations all imply that heterosexual men and women think differently about homosexuality, and that their thinking is nuanced according to whether the attitude object is gay men or lesbians (for a general discussion, see Kite & Whitley, 1998).

kellyb
4th February 2010, 02:04 PM
How often should the patriarchy be blown?

Ivor.




























:D lol.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 02:09 PM
You must not work in America. In my experience you can be fired for looking at someone wrong if it is seen as offensive.

I don't think you would be the one being fired if you brought up these sexist jokes.

Right.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 02:17 PM
Getting fired for sex discrimination is pretty difficult in America. It's overblown only because there's a subset of employers that used it to get rid of problem employees for a certain period of time (especially older employees who cost more money from the company). The companies would wait for a complaint, then fire as many of the 'old guard' as possible. This saved them money, and it didn't really hurt their image. If the company actually wishes to retain the sexist employee, it can be reasonably hard to have a legal case.

For instance, one of my friends got fired because he asked a coworker out on a date, and his supervisor got wind of this. By the same token, he was making 20% more than other people because he had been there for three years at that point (turnover was absurd) and she had to be looking to get rid of him.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 02:18 PM
No they don't. But we can add 'military training' to the list of things you don't understand.

What do you think the military use to train people to kill?

The point of this forum is not just to reply "No, you're wrong.", it's to provide information to explain why someone is wrong.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 02:24 PM
The anal sex in heterosexual pornography has not been sanitized. It's just as messy (if not more so -- some of you know what I mean, and I'm not going into detail for those who don't) as the anal sex people have in their own homes. It's just that you have some sort of weird perception that anal sex = poo everywhere, when it doesn't.

No, I don't think anal sex = poo everywhere.

Don't know where you got that idea from.

HansMustermann
4th February 2010, 02:30 PM
I don't really disagree with your POV too much. The thing which perplexed me about the "girls making out with other girls to please the guys" phenomenon was the fact that the pressure to engage in the activity was coming from other girls, even though it was a behavior we all felt ambivalent about. It was almost like we derived a sense of power from being on the side of the (percieved as more powerful) menfolk.

I'm not a radical feminist, because I am a skeptic, but I'm a moderate feminist who believes that "the patriarchy" is still "real" (though often blown out of proportion), because I am a skeptic. For example, I work in a male dominated industry, and would probably eventually get fired if I made a fuss over the never-ending sexist jokes and offensive commentaries about female body parts I hear from co-workers. I have to just laugh and hide the fact that I'm offended to survive professionally. It's not "right"; it just is what it is. Life as a chick in Dude Nation.
Similarly, for teenage girls to survive socially in most social circles, to be "cool", you have to pretend to not be offended by the sexist behaviors of the guys.

I think the word "patriarchy" itself is a hyperbole in this context, just like the "slavery" in "wage slavery", or "witch hunt" for some more benign human mishaps. But ok, I can understand what you mean. Yes, depending on the country and domain, the inequality can be very real.

I'm just not into blaming stuff like giving some guys a little show on the "patriarchy". As, I'm left with the impression, was the implication in message #184.

I mean, there's stuff which objectively has consequences and which matters. Like that according to one study, all else being equal, just mentioning that you have children at a job interview causes the offered wage to drop. That's real discrimination and, I guess, can be seen as a manifestation of the "arkhe" in "patriarchy". But I just can't imagine any HR dude/dudette bringing up the question of how you feel about making out with another girl in a bar, except maybe if it's an interview for the porn industry.

Speaking of which, though, that message does bring a point that I had been sorta idly wondering for the last decade or so...

Some of us have even felt a vague pressure from other girls and guys alike to engage in that behavior ourselves, or faced ridicule for objecting to it.

My emphasis.

Is it just me, or do women do more to enforce the "patriarchy" on other women than men ever did?

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 02:31 PM
What do you think the military use to train people to kill?

The point of this forum is not just to reply "No, you're wrong.", it's to provide information to explain why someone is wrong.

Well since you made the claim, it's rather up to you to provide evidence. I cannot possibly go through every military training procedure to identify exactly its use, and demonstrate that not a single one of them involves what you said.

It's reasonably typical for you to demand that though :rolleyes:

As for what they do use to train people to kill, it's reasonably simple. They use live fire exercises to train people not to break under combat situations. They use squad cohesiveness training like simulated combat situations to ensure that communication doesn't break down and people react quickly and correctly to high stress situations. They use target practice to train soldiers to fire their weapons accurately.

Here's a link about basic army training:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/l/aaarmybasic4.htm

Here's a link, same source, basic marine training:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marinejoin/a/marinebasic2_3.htm


As you can see, it is about physical preparedness, weapon use, discipline, and unit cohesion. It is not about shooting life-sized silicon dummies so that our soldiers are 'used to killing things.'

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 02:38 PM
Well since you made the claim, it's rather up to you to provide evidence. I cannot possibly go through every military training procedure to identify exactly its use, and demonstrate that not a single one of them involves what you said.

It's reasonably typical for you to demand that though :rolleyes:

As for what they do use to train people to kill, it's reasonably simple. They use live fire exercises to train people not to break under combat situations. They use squad cohesiveness training like simulated combat situations to ensure that communication doesn't break down and people react quickly and correctly to high stress situations. They use target practice to train soldiers to fire their weapons accurately.

Here's a link about basic army training:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/armyjoin/l/aaarmybasic4.htm

Here's a link, same source, basic marine training:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marinejoin/a/marinebasic2_3.htm


As you can see, it is about physical preparedness, weapon use, discipline, and unit cohesion. It is not about shooting life-sized silicon dummies so that our soldiers are 'used to killing things.'

http://www.killology.com/art_teach_operant.htm

In World War II we taught our soldiers to fire at bullseye targets, but that training failed miserably because we have no known instances of any soldiers being attacked by bullseyes. Now soldiers learn to fire at realistic, man-shaped silhouettes that pop up in their field of view. That's the stimulus. The conditioned response is to shoot the target and then it drops. Stimulus-response, stimulus-response, repeated hundreds of times. Later, when they are in combat and somebody pops up with a gun, reflexively they will shoot and shoot to kill, 75 to 80 percent of the shooting on the modern battlefield is the result of this kind of training (Grossman & Siddle, 1999).

See, now you've learnt something.;)

kellyb
4th February 2010, 02:42 PM
Speaking of which, though, that message does bring a point that I had been sorta idly wondering for the last decade or so...



My emphasis.

Is it just me, or do women do more to enforce the "patriarchy" on other women than men ever did?

Yes, they do. (well, not necessarily more than men EVER did, but in recent years, yes.) Girls chastise other girls who don't automatically side with the guys a lot of times. Being able to tolerate sexist crap is considered a badge of "coolness" among girls, and a willingness to call out sexism, a sign of being an overly-sensitive, PC-obsessed pussy.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 02:45 PM
http://www.killology.com/art_teach_operant.htm



See, now you've learnt something.;)

Uh, no. That's to train our soldiers to be alert. It's reaction time training. Seriously, our military spends a lot of time training people NOT to shoot at things that pop up - identifying civilians and targets (one of their goals is to have soldiers who THINK and react. Shooting a kid who runs into the street = bad).

The military has learned the hard way that there's no way to train people to be ready to take a life, that's why they spend so much on psychological counseling nowadays.

God, it figures you'd buy into that 'training our kids to kill' nonsense.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 03:02 PM
Uh, no. That's to train our soldiers to be alert. It's reaction time training. Seriously, our military spends a lot of time training people NOT to shoot at things that pop up - identifying civilians and targets (one of their goals is to have soldiers who THINK and react. Shooting a kid who runs into the street = bad).

The military has learned the hard way that there's no way to train people to be ready to take a life, that's why they spend so much on psychological counseling nowadays.

God, it figures you'd buy into that 'training our kids to kill' nonsense.


http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/information/publications/articles/Killing_JCH.pdf

Roy
Grinker and John Spiegel, two American psychiatrists who treated US troops
in North Africa, also concluded that few soldiers ‘anticipate pleasure from
destruction or killing, and, although some chronically hostile, aggressive individuals
may be fascinated by the prospect of getting all the fighting they want,
they frequently find it impossible to adapt their habitually irascible personalities
to the controlled environment of teamwork and coordination necessary in
battle’.9 Subsequently, Dave Grossman suggested that increasingly realistic
training was needed to overcome the natural reluctance of recruits to kill.
Techniques of desensitization and conditioning (including the replacement of
bullseye targets with human representations that fell back on being hit) eroded
any resistance a serviceman might feel towards shooting the enemy. As a
result, a firing rate of 55 per cent was observed in Korea, rising to 90 per cent
in Vietnam.10

Yoink
4th February 2010, 03:13 PM
LOL!

Yeah, those moans of pleasure are real.

And they really are lesbians when the camera isn't on.

Wait...what?

Just when one thinks your argument can't get any loopier, out comes this.

We weren't talking about whether or not porn actors enjoy what they do, Ivor. We were talking about whether people in general associate anal sex with a "disgusting" exposure to "poo."

Nothing in (normal mainstream hetero) porn movies is "simulated" so as to alter or distort the association of anal sex with "poo."

Now, if you want to change the argument to a COMPLETELY different basis and say that anal sex is much less pleasurable for women than pornography generally speaking tends to suggest, then you would probably be on reasonably strong ground. Unfortunately for you it would be ground that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with your original claims. That many women find anal sex uncomfortable (and not, as porn movies suggest, the acme of pleasure) can hardly have anything whatsoever to do with our attitudes towards homosexuality, can it? Nor does it have anything do with our disgust--innate or otherwise--at the idea of being exposed to poo.

So...do you have any other bizarre irrelevancies to bring up, or would you just finally admit that you made a demonstrably false and silly argument?

Yoink
4th February 2010, 03:29 PM
Evidence to the contrary, courtesy of Dan Savage:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/columns/savage-love/Content?oid=29323



You have an amazing way of quoting stuff as "evidence" for your argument which actually proves precisely the case against your argument. Here we have someone who actually makes gay porn telling us that in the vast majority of cases there is NO POO AT ALL involved in the anal sex scenes that he films. And somehow you think this supports your claim that we should automatically associate anal sex with being exposed to poo?

Truly, Ivor, it's a wonder to watch the way your mind works.

So, what is the current state of our collective knowledge:

1) 2-in-5 straight people have tried anal sex and 3-in-5 gay men have.
2) Anal sex is an absolute staple of the mainstream heterosexual pornographic market.
3) Professionals involved in making gay anal-sex films assure us that any exposure to poo from engaging in anal sex is extremely unlikely.
4) Parents of young babies simply cannot avoid daily exposure to poo.
5) Parents of young babies cannot avoid daily exposure to vomit.

Now kindly explain to us how an association with "exposure to poo" is fixed in our minds as the prime characteristic of homosexual men because of their willingness to perform anal sex and how that is the origin of social discrimination against gay men and yet no such social discrimination obtains against parents of young babies who (by the evidence you yourself have brought to this thread) are astronomically more likely to have daily contact with someone else's poo than a gay man?

After you've done that little bit of mental gymnastics, you can explain why we don't have a social prejudice against nurses, who not only have daily exposure to excrement, blood and all manner of other "disgusting" substances, but who are exposed to strangers' blood, excrement etc. for money.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 03:40 PM
Wait...what?

Just when one thinks your argument can't get any loopier, out comes this.

We weren't talking about whether or not porn actors enjoy what they do, Ivor. We were talking about whether people in general associate anal sex with a "disgusting" exposure to "poo."

Nothing in (normal mainstream hetero) porn movies is "simulated" so as to alter or distort the association of anal sex with "poo."

<snip>

Simulated, no. Edited, choreographed and enemas used so no froth of lube and poo is seen, yes. Read the Dan Savage article I linked to earlier (under the NSFW).

This sanitised version of anal sex in porn is possibly one of the factors which have made it more popular in real life.

Ivor the Engineer
4th February 2010, 03:41 PM
You have an amazing way of quoting stuff as "evidence" for your argument which actually proves precisely the case against your argument. Here we have someone who actually makes gay porn telling us that in the vast majority of cases there is NO POO AT ALL involved in the anal sex scenes that he films. And somehow you think this supports your claim that we should automatically associate anal sex with being exposed to poo?

Truly, Ivor, it's a wonder to watch the way your mind works.

<snip>

See my previous post.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 03:51 PM
Simulated, no. Edited, choreographed and enemas used so no froth of lube and poo is seen, yes. Read the Dan Savage article I linked to earlier (under the NSFW).

This sanitised version of anal sex in porn is possibly one of the factors which have made it more popular in real life.

I still don't agree with your hypothesis, but the fact that "smellivision" technology has yet to be invented is also a factor in the popularity of "sanitized" buttsecks as portrayed by porn vs "real life". IYKWIM. lol.

Yoink
4th February 2010, 04:09 PM
Simulated, no. Edited, choreographed and enemas used so no froth of lube and poo is seen, yes. Read the Dan Savage article I linked to earlier (under the NSFW).

This sanitised version of anal sex in porn is possibly one of the factors which have made it more popular in real life.

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.

Kevin_Lowe
4th February 2010, 04:17 PM
You think "the patriarchy" referred to here is nonsense?

Rather than link to random articles, it would help a great deal if you defined, clearly and precisely, what you mean by "the patriarchy".

Before you erect any straw men: No, I am not denying that sexism exists. I still want you to define, clearly and precisely, what you mean by "the patriarchy".

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 04:57 PM
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/kcmhr/information/publications/articles/Killing_JCH.pdf

Oh ffs really? That's the definition of non-science. I didn't detect a single non-anecdote in there. They even admitted their anecdotes were probably self-censored and/or wrong.

If the military is so 'desensitized' why the hell have the PTSD rates not declined?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/

They're running about the same as they were in Vietnam and higher than they were in the first gulf war. Nice 'desensitization.' Too bad combat seems to have the same bloody effect on the psyche that it always does. If our soldiers in Iraq are so desensitized, it seems to be the sort of desensitization you only 'understand' by 'talking to them' and 'feeling their feelings.' Because numbers sure as crap ain't reflecting it.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 05:15 PM
Rather than link to random articles, it would help a great deal if you defined, clearly and precisely, what you mean by "the patriarchy".

Before you erect any straw men: No, I am not denying that sexism exists. I still want you to define, clearly and precisely, what you mean by "the patriarchy".

In modern Western culture, it is the system of ideas and economics which place men in a position privilege over women.

kellyb
4th February 2010, 05:17 PM
Oh ffs really? That's the definition of non-science. I didn't detect a single non-anecdote in there. They even admitted their anecdotes were probably self-censored and/or wrong.

If the military is so 'desensitized' why the hell have the PTSD rates not declined?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/

They're running about the same as they were in Vietnam and higher than they were in the first gulf war. Nice 'desensitization.' Too bad combat seems to have the same bloody effect on the psyche that it always does. If our soldiers in Iraq are so desensitized, it seems to be the sort of desensitization you only 'understand' by 'talking to them' and 'feeling their feelings.' Because numbers sure as crap ain't reflecting it.

Your link doesn't work.
A distinction should be drawn, though, between being desensitized to killing the enemy and the traumatic effect of having your life constantly threatened.

Kevin_Lowe
4th February 2010, 05:23 PM
In modern Western culture, it is the system of ideas and economics which place men in a position privilege over women.

How is male homosexuality supposed to be a threat to that?

kellyb
4th February 2010, 05:40 PM
How is male homosexuality supposed to be a threat to that?
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.

GreyICE
4th February 2010, 05:54 PM
Your link doesn't work.
A distinction should be drawn, though, between being desensitized to killing the enemy and the traumatic effect of having your life constantly threatened.
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?

Wow. So they're evil, turning our soldiers into programmed killing machines, and they're not even getting any effects out of it.

Or maybe when they pop up a group of 'terrorists' and 'civilians' they're seeking to train them in rapid threat assessment, so they DON'T hose down a group of kids with an M-60. Y'know, maybe they're not actually pure evil and all that.

Kevin_Lowe
4th February 2010, 05:58 PM
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.

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.