PDA

View Full Version : Homosexuality is a choice


Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

MarkCorrigan
28th April 2011, 04:15 AM
Since female porn acting involves a lot of fake orgasms ( I think I'm safe in making that assumption!) it would be rather harder to tell if they were becoming aroused. Still, if a woman is being truthful about regularly having orgasms on screen with another woman, that really sounds like she's bisexual.
I'm sorry, but no. Your personal incredulity and lack of curiosity to even give a decent look at the evidence provided to you doesn't trump actual evidence, including personal testimony given by rape victims, including some on this very forum.


ETA: That is to say, you're utterly wrong about needing mental stimulation to maintain arousal and come to climax. It's one of the reasons that men can and are raped by women by having the woman ride the man's penis, in fact. If it were not possible for a man to be aroused in a situation he did not find arousing mentally, then this kind of rape would be impossible. It happens, ergo men can be physically stimulated without emotional and/or mental arousal.

Marcus
28th April 2011, 04:29 AM
His second link has the reference.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WHN-4BRTKC2-7&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5d16ed7bc168370c3ef80609c2601bfa&searchtype=a
This is what I was looking for, I must have missed the link when reading that. I didn't pay to read the whole article, but judging from the abstract, I think it's reasonably safe to say that my assumption that one can't be aroused against one's will was wrong.

Marcus
28th April 2011, 04:38 AM
I'm sorry, but no. Your personal incredulity and lack of curiosity to even give a decent look at the evidence provided to you doesn't trump actual evidence, including personal testimony given by rape victims, including some on this very forum.


ETA: That is to say, you're utterly wrong about needing mental stimulation to maintain arousal and come to climax. It's one of the reasons that men can and are raped by women by having the woman ride the man's penis, in fact. If it were not possible for a man to be aroused in a situation he did not find arousing mentally, then this kind of rape would be impossible. It happens, ergo men can be physically stimulated without emotional and/or mental arousal.
I never made this claim, that my incredulity trumped evidence. I asked for evidence, was given it, and missed it the first time around, so shoot me.

MarkCorrigan
28th April 2011, 04:43 AM
I never made this claim, that my incredulity trumped evidence. I asked for evidence, was given it, and missed it the first time around, so shoot me.

Except that the post where you acknowledge your mistake came 14 minutes after the post of mine you just quoted.

At the time I wrote that, you were still siding with your own opinions, albeit slightly reservedly.

charles brough
28th April 2011, 04:57 AM
I'm not sure why some of you are looking at it as an either/or (black or white, yes or no), instead of a range with no definite points where you can say "over this line be heterosexual, over this line be homosexual, and in between are the bisexuals"....

Confusing a broad range with defined points isn't just a problem with this topic, but with many that come up (not just at the jref).

Likewise, surely there are some people (most likely a very small percentage of g/l's) that actually did make a choice (not counting bisexuals). Yet, as was already pointed out above, thinking that it is anywhere near a majority and not a tiny minority is basically absurd.

That's on target. Studies have shown that hetersexuality is an alpha trait limited to a minority and that the big segment is bisexuality. Also, that bisexuals lean more heavily towards the homosexual end of the spectrum. The totally homosexual end is small.

Oh, by the way, Donald Trump says he is proud of himself . . .

Sorry for the interruption, getting back to the subject, it is of note that homosexuality is hardly limited to us. Other animals exhibit it also. It serves an evolutionary function. It is normal for alpha heterosexual males to compete aggressively for dominance. This tends to be brutal. It would be a truly chaotic group or society if all the males competed brutally for domiance!
The subdominant bisexuals are glad to stay out of the fray.

Yet, there has developed some cause for the prejudice exhibited against homosexuality in us humans. For the last five thousand years, every one of our civilizations has had to adapt our polygamous nature to the patriarchal-monogamous system. That means marriage and a patriarchal, alpha dominant culture. When the marital system breaks down---as it always does in civilizations when their ideological bond breaks down---bisexuals separate from the favored patriarchal/monogamous system and establish homosexual unions, often even temporary ones. As reaction then sets in, homosexual unions may tend to be more permanent. But the main thrust of reaction or regression back to conservative patriarchal/monogamous values has to take on the nature of a war over what is it to be, a gay or a p/m culture?

ZirconBlue
28th April 2011, 06:15 AM
The more I read this thread, the less I'm convinced that sexual orientation as a "scale". A scale is too limiting and strict, and people's emotions and desires are not like that. I believe it's a mix of nature and nurture, throw in a lot of emotions, fantasies, circumstance and type of people involved, and everyone is bisexual or not, depending on the elements above.

...just an opinion.

I think a seperate axis for each gender would be better than the single line scale, but, either way, I think the scale is a useful model if you factor in that a persons sexuality is not a fixed point on the scale, but can move about depending upon circumstance.

Arcade22
28th April 2011, 06:22 AM
As a completely binary heterosexual, with no attractions to males whatsoever, I'm still having trouble imagining being aroused by a male against my will, but I don't think I will put it to the test.

Really? Have you 'tried' everything? Men? Boys? Androgynous? Effeminate? Cross-dressers? Shemales?

Marcus
28th April 2011, 07:06 AM
Except that the post where you acknowledge your mistake came 14 minutes after the post of mine you just quoted.

At the time I wrote that, you were still siding with your own opinions, albeit slightly reservedly.
At the time you wrote that, I was composing my post, I didn't see yours until I posted mine.

ETA: Just to answer your next objection, it can take an hour to compose a post, interruptions and distractions can and do happen.

Marcus
28th April 2011, 07:15 AM
Really? Have you 'tried' everything? Men? Boys? Androgynous? Effeminate? Cross-dressers? Shemales?
Is this what you require for you to be able to determine your own sexuality? If someone says they are gay, do you disbelieve them unless they have tried every flavor of the opposite sex??

Taarkin
28th April 2011, 07:21 AM
I will make one further observation, I'm not yet convinced that no thought process is involved. After all, one's hand can cause arousal, but thought is needed, I doubt if any of us become aroused while showering or going to the bathroom.
Dude. Morning wood.

Arcade22
28th April 2011, 08:06 AM
Is this what you require for you to be able to determine your own sexuality? If someone says they are gay, do you disbelieve them unless they have tried every flavor of the opposite sex??

No? But i guess i was expecting more from someone who boldly claims that he has "no attractions to males whatsoever".

Marcus
28th April 2011, 08:45 AM
No? But i guess i was expecting more from someone who boldly claims that he has "no attractions to males whatsoever".
You were expecting me to claim that I had tried sex with Men, Boys, Androgynous, Effeminate, She-Males and Cross-dressers? Sorry, I don't believe you.

Arcade22
28th April 2011, 09:18 AM
You were expecting me to claim that I had tried sex with Men, Boys, Androgynous, Effeminate, She-Males and Cross-dressers? Sorry, I don't believe you.

By 'tried' i meant anything from thinking up fantasies to looking at erotic photos and everything in between.

Marcus
28th April 2011, 09:37 AM
By 'tried' i meant anything from thinking up fantasies to looking at erotic photos and everything in between.
Well, I've seen gay images, gay porn, and read erotic stories that included a mixture. I've been exposed to my share of drag queens , I don't have any desire to fantasize about having sex with boys, and I haven't personally met an androgynous person that I know of.

If you believe the idea that sexual preference comes in a continuum, and I do, you have to at least admit to the possibility that both ends of the continuum are occupied as well as the middle.

Arcade22
28th April 2011, 10:03 AM
If you believe the idea that sexual preference comes in a continuum, and I do, you have to at least admit to the possibility that both ends of the continuum are occupied as well as the middle.

Yes of course. If one tries to pleasure oneself to something and it just doesn't work, then that's that. But many people on both ends of the spectrum seem to limit their sex lives not because what they really feel and are capable of but rather what kind of labels they've put on themselves.

"Sorry, I'm gay therefore I can't possibly find women attractive" rather than "Sorry, I'm not attracted to girls. I'm gay". It might seem like a meaningless semantical difference but that was how i actually worked (switching gay to straight) before i was exposed to enough same-sex material and got the courage to experiment and started to accept the homosexual feelings i kept buried.

One has nothing to lose from diving down the depths of self discovery, other than possibly the vain notions of modesty and decency.

JFrankA
29th April 2011, 04:16 PM
I think a seperate axis for each gender would be better than the single line scale, but, either way, I think the scale is a useful model if you factor in that a persons sexuality is not a fixed point on the scale, but can move about depending upon circumstance.

That's just it. I don't think it's simple depends on circumstance. It's a mixture.

Look, I compare what gets a person aroused is like what kind of food a person likes. For example, I hate tomatoes. Can't stand the taste by itself. I pick them off a sandwich if someone puts sliced tomatoes on a sandwich.

But - crush them and make them into a sauce and put them on a pizza or pasta. Okay, I like it that way. So even though I like tomatoes as part of a sauce, I can't stand them alone.

The basic desire is attraction to tomatoes isn't there, but in a certain circumstance, yes.

On the flip side, peanut butter is the world's most perfect food. I love peanut butter more than any other food I can think of -- except on bananas. Or tomatoes. Or mixed with honey (bleh). Or.... you get the point.

The basic attraction to peanut butter is strong, but given certain circumstances - no way!

Why do I hate tomatoes? I don't know. Just do. Why do I love peanut butter so much? I don't know. Just do. Now since I like tomatoes a certain way in a certain situation, should we put it on a scale? How do you scale taste?

I feel the same goes for sexual attraction. For example, I am heterosexual and I couldn't take my eyes off Olivia Wilde in the new Tron movie. In fact, the first time I saw it, all I could see was her. Then I saw her without the Tron get up and I thought "Meh. She's okay." Where does that put me on the "scale"?

ETA: Actually, I thought of a better example. Take Olivia Wilde in the Tron get up, being Dominate over a man or a woman, and forget it. I wouldn't be interested in the least bit. In fact, that turns me right off. However, put her in a situation where she is submissive to a man and HELL YEAH! ...how do you scale that?

There can be no scale to it. There is a basic sexual attraction (or taste) that one cannot change, just like one likes peanut butter but hates tomatoes. But in a certain situations, other factors, such as emotions, social pressure, intelligent reason, hell even intoxication, etc, etc, can make one enjoy tomatoes and hate peanut butter, but the basic attraction does not change.

IMHO, this is way too complicated to simplify basic desires, fantasies, tastes, emotions, thinking processes, hang-ups, reasons, inhibitions, etc, etc into a scale.

gumboot
29th April 2011, 06:12 PM
One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Recent posters seem to have nailed the idea that sexuality isn't a simple black and white, or even gray-scale issue.

One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

What if you were 95% straight and 5% gay? Maybe then you wouldn't be quite so bothered by the naked guy, and could enjoy the scene, as long as you didn't see any full frontal male nudity, or something.

By the time you get to 50/50% maybe you get as much delight from watching the guy as the girl. But then as you tip the other way, the opposite happens. By the time you're 95% gay and 5% straight you're loving the guy, but the naked girl's just palpable.

Finally, at 100% gay, you can't watch a straight sex scene, because the image of a naked woman rolling about is such a turn-off.

Given that films would only have gay sex scenes if most people were at the extreme ends of the scale, clearly most of us are somewhere closer to the middle. So basically, everyone's a little gay. (I've often thought that anyone who's really into straight porn must be quite gay, since it mostly seems to consist of intense closeups of penises!)

The same sort of sliding scale could be applied to a plethora of different characteristics, such as age. Start with a 10 year old boy and an 60 year old woman doing the horizontal dance together. Who's into that? No thanks. Two 35 year olds? I can handle that.

Then again with general attractiveness. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually prefer a sex scene with two averagely attractive people than, say, Natalie Portman and the Elephant Man.

You could make up sliding scales like this forever, using different opposing characteristics of sexual attractiveness.

calebprime
29th April 2011, 06:20 PM
One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Recent posters seem to have nailed the idea that sexuality isn't a simple black and white, or even gray-scale issue.

One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

What if you were 95% straight and 5% gay? Maybe then you wouldn't be quite so bothered by the naked guy, and could enjoy the scene, as long as you didn't see any full frontal male nudity, or something.

By the time you get to 50/50% maybe you get as much delight from watching the guy as the girl. But then as you tip the other way, the opposite happens. By the time you're 95% gay and 5% straight you're loving the guy, but the naked girl's just palpable.

Finally, at 100% gay, you can't watch a straight sex scene, because the image of a naked woman rolling about is such a turn-off.

Given that films would only have gay sex scenes if most people were at the extreme ends of the scale, clearly most of us are somewhere closer to the middle. So basically, everyone's a little gay. (I've often thought that anyone who's really into straight porn must be quite gay, since it mostly seems to consist of intense closeups of penises!)

The same sort of sliding scale could be applied to a plethora of different characteristics, such as age. Start with a 10 year old boy and an 60 year old woman doing the horizontal dance together. Who's into that? No thanks. Two 35 year olds? I can handle that.

Then again with general attractiveness. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually prefer a sex scene with two averagely attractive people than, say, Natalie Portman and the Elephant Man.

You could make up sliding scales like this forever, using different opposing characteristics of sexual attractiveness.

I'm not sure that word means what you think it means?

As for second hi-light. No need to mention the Elephant Man, when one only need imagine the hideous Ron Jeremy (later in his career.)

They call him The Hedgehog. Nothing with him in it, past 1975, could be a turn-on.

Just sayin'. By your measure, I'm about 60/40 straight to gay.

JFrankA
29th April 2011, 06:22 PM
One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Recent posters seem to have nailed the idea that sexuality isn't a simple black and white, or even gray-scale issue.

One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

What if you were 95% straight and 5% gay? Maybe then you wouldn't be quite so bothered by the naked guy, and could enjoy the scene, as long as you didn't see any full frontal male nudity, or something.

By the time you get to 50/50% maybe you get as much delight from watching the guy as the girl. But then as you tip the other way, the opposite happens. By the time you're 95% gay and 5% straight you're loving the guy, but the naked girl's just palpable.

Finally, at 100% gay, you can't watch a straight sex scene, because the image of a naked woman rolling about is such a turn-off.

Given that films would only have gay sex scenes if most people were at the extreme ends of the scale, clearly most of us are somewhere closer to the middle. So basically, everyone's a little gay. (I've often thought that anyone who's really into straight porn must be quite gay, since it mostly seems to consist of intense closeups of penises!)

The same sort of sliding scale could be applied to a plethora of different characteristics, such as age. Start with a 10 year old boy and an 60 year old woman doing the horizontal dance together. Who's into that? No thanks. Two 35 year olds? I can handle that.

Then again with general attractiveness. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually prefer a sex scene with two averagely attractive people than, say, Natalie Portman and the Elephant Man.

You could make up sliding scales like this forever, using different opposing characteristics of sexual attractiveness.

Well put. Much better than I did it. :)

JFrankA
29th April 2011, 06:23 PM
No need to mention the Elephant Man, when one only need imagine the hideous Ron Jeremy (later in his career.)

That is true too. :D

gumboot
29th April 2011, 06:59 PM
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means?

No, it doesn't. :D Thank you for the correction.

*palatable.



As for second hi-light. No need to mention the Elephant Man, when one only need imagine the hideous Ron Jeremy (later in his career.)

They call him The Hedgehog. Nothing with him in it, past 1975, could be a turn-on.


One of the reasons I have never, ever, understood the attraction of porn (aside from the way it usually makes sex look kind of gross) is the prevalence of incredibly ugly men whose only attribute seems to be a large penis (see my earlier remark about straight porn actually being gay).


Just sayin'. By your measure, I'm about 60/40 straight to gay.

I suspect most of us are actually probably more gay than we think (or are willing to admit). I reckon any straight male who likes hardcore straight pornography has to be at least 30% gay. (Yes, I did make that number up). :)

Alan
29th April 2011, 09:48 PM
I don't think a man would need to be turned off by a man in order to be straight. Couldn't he just be neutral to the man?

Skeptic
29th April 2011, 10:34 PM
One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

This gets something very simple wrong: straight men aren't turned off by seeing naked men. They are indifferent to seeing naked men. Not the same thing.

A turn-off would be if the woman in the movie was, for instance, your sister. I would say most men would certainly not want to watch such a sex scene -- however hot she is to others.

Silly Green Monkey
29th April 2011, 10:59 PM
Really? Have you 'tried' everything? Men? Boys? Androgynous? Effeminate? Cross-dressers? Shemales?

Is this what you require for you to be able to determine your own sexuality? If someone says they are gay, do you disbelieve them unless they have tried every flavor of the opposite sex??

No? But i guess i was expecting more from someone who boldly claims that he has "no attractions to males whatsoever".

By 'tried' i meant anything from thinking up fantasies to looking at erotic photos and everything in between.
Do I need to look at all seven billion people on the planet before anyone will accept that I don't feel sexual attraction to any of them?

Aitch
30th April 2011, 12:39 AM
I suspect most of us are actually probably more gay than we think (or are willing to admit). I reckon any straight male who likes hardcore straight pornography has to be at least 30% gay. (Yes, I did make that number up). :)

That brings to mind Frank Harris's remark to the Duc de Richelieu:


No, my dear Duke, I know nothing about the joys of homosexuality. You must speak to my friend Oscar about that... And yet, if Shakespeare had asked me I would have had to submit.

JFrankA
30th April 2011, 12:56 AM
This gets something very simple wrong: straight men aren't turned off by seeing naked men. They are indifferent to seeing naked men. Not the same thing.

A turn-off would be if the woman in the movie was, for instance, your sister. I would say most men would certainly not want to watch such a sex scene -- however hot she is to others.

Very true, but the point Gumboot was making, is that for the reason he said and even because of what you said, a "Homosexual - Heterosexual" scale just doesn't make sense.

Arcade22
30th April 2011, 08:54 AM
One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Recent posters seem to have nailed the idea that sexuality isn't a simple black and white, or even gray-scale issue.

One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

What if you were 95% straight and 5% gay? Maybe then you wouldn't be quite so bothered by the naked guy, and could enjoy the scene, as long as you didn't see any full frontal male nudity, or something.

By the time you get to 50/50% maybe you get as much delight from watching the guy as the girl. But then as you tip the other way, the opposite happens. By the time you're 95% gay and 5% straight you're loving the guy, but the naked girl's just palpable.

Finally, at 100% gay, you can't watch a straight sex scene, because the image of a naked woman rolling about is such a turn-off.

Given that films would only have gay sex scenes if most people were at the extreme ends of the scale, clearly most of us are somewhere closer to the middle. So basically, everyone's a little gay. (I've often thought that anyone who's really into straight porn must be quite gay, since it mostly seems to consist of intense closeups of penises!)

The same sort of sliding scale could be applied to a plethora of different characteristics, such as age. Start with a 10 year old boy and an 60 year old woman doing the horizontal dance together. Who's into that? No thanks. Two 35 year olds? I can handle that.

Then again with general attractiveness. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I'd actually prefer a sex scene with two averagely attractive people than, say, Natalie Portman and the Elephant Man.

You could make up sliding scales like this forever, using different opposing characteristics of sexual attractiveness.


Then how 'gay' is someone who finds feminine features attractive but couldn't care if it's a guy or a girl? Is that being just as 'bisexual' as finding both masculine guys and 'normal' women attractive, but not 'feminine' guys?

Example: Feminine (http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/535/1272561676001.jpg) guy (http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/1347/1273404346001.jpg) and masculine guy (http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/5628/1300463570804.jpg)

charles brough
30th April 2011, 10:22 AM
Being heterosexual, I had no idea the position of society was bringing such misery on the homosexual element in society, so aptly stated in some of the posts in this very long thread. Being an atheist and knowing the science involved in all this, I have long been amazed at the ignorant statements made people of the church about it being unnatural and able to be changed.

In my posts, I often point out that homosexuality is common in other animals as well and that it serves a vital function to group survival. The staid academic community is reluctant to deal with that fact however because it wants to avoid conflict with the faithful. So, let me sum up, what I, a heterosexual atheist, have found out:

We evolved as small (hunting-gathering) group primates. In small group animals, the alpha males uniformly practice a kind of brutal competition for dominance. In the sexual-preference scale, the alphas are the heterosexuals. If all the males underwent this brutal competition, the group, including our groups which we call "societies," would be in perpetual chaos. Of course, our democratic secular system finds it necessary to play down/ignore this alpha trait. After all, the system cannot claim domination is natural if we aim for a democratic society! No man is "supposed" to dominate.

So, social scientists are not effectively coming to the defense of gayness nor do they want to antagonise the faithful.

Nevertheless, studies show that the male majority is to some extent bisexual. Only the most dominant Alphas have no erotic response to the same sex, but most men are totally unaware of this. As example, the individual might might not realize that in watching a Flaminco dance, he is more fascinated with the male dancer than with the female. The totally homosexuals are only a small minority.

What has happened is that society had to adopt patriarchal/monogamous ideas or ideology in order to build organized society. I explain why and how in "The Next Civilization," but the point is that it was necessary and has enabled us to build civilization and keep advancing. The problem is that monogamy requries a strictly heterosexual, alpha, patriarchal "culture" diametrically opposite of a "gay culture." It is a system that had to be ideologically imposed in order to work. Thus, it has make victims of the homsexul segment.

How it workes is that it provides a culture or public opinion that forces or encourages all the bisexuals into the marital system. In that way, it can control the stream-of-sexual-encounters characteristic of gay culture and at the same to support the male domiance, Alpha ways enough to organize males into a heirarchy of dominance known as "government."

Now, with the marital system breaking down, society is becoming destabilized and the whole civilization thrown into decline. Polls show that over half the people already believe it is in decline even without remembering all the long list of social problems that were in the news in earler decades.

In response, the church seeks to regress society back to the old faith to correct the problems. That, however, is not going to happen. It is not as though the patriarchal/monogamous sytem has to be so brutal with homosexuality. A p/m system could (and I think, will) be eventually establish that can preserve a patriarchal culture and marital system in a contracted agreement between the two to cultures or ways of life.

Darat
30th April 2011, 10:36 AM
...snip...

One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

...snip...

I think you have a false dichotomy in that there section.

I would say not being turned on by something is not the same as being turned off by something. Whilst a heterosexual male may not be turned on by seeing a male in a porn film I don't see why they would be turned off?

Given what a lot of porn consists of and typical male group behaviour I really don't think the "100% heterosexual" male would be turned off by seeing other men engaging in sex, whether with other men or women. He would either be turned on or not turned on.

Aepervius
30th April 2011, 11:07 AM
Really? Have you 'tried' everything? Men? Boys? Androgynous? Effeminate? Cross-dressers? Shemales?

Since when you do have to try every sex stuff to know you are not attracted to it ?

DId you have sex with a poney ? With a pig ? With a corpse ? With the corpse of a poney ? Did you trxy asphixy sex ? Did you try young teenager (assuming a legal one 14 year old) ? Did you try sex with children (hey illegal, but maybe you like it) ? Did you try sex with a vaccum cleaner ? With a shoe ? With a muppet ? Maybe you know you missed that kick with having sex with an apple pie. Hey how about sado maso ?

"you need to try the other type of sex to know if you like it" is one of the stupidiest argument I ever heard.

Aepervius
30th April 2011, 11:10 AM
No? But i guess i was expecting more from someone who boldly claims that he has "no attractions to males whatsoever".

Why not ? I have no attraction whatsoever to children or vaccuum cleaner or poney either. I do not need to try it, the idea already disgust me. Other people might like it , and so far as legal , if that is their thing , that's their sex life.

Aepervius
30th April 2011, 11:18 AM
One thing that struck me is, if you were 100% straight male (let's just pretend to assign numerical value for a moment) you surely wouldn't be able to stand watching a straight sex scene in, say, a movie, right? Despite the delight of watching a naked goddess rolling about in pleasure, you would be so totally turned off by seeing a naked male that it wouldn't work.

That is why some of us only watch lesbian porn. Ho hum.

I agree that the sexual scale are not black and white but a rainbow of color going from light to dark, probably a multidimensional space seeing how spread it is.

What I always wondered is where the gaussian actually is. Is it really centered on 50/50 ? I don't think so otherwise there would probably much more bi.

I have the feeling there are actually two half gaussian , One with a high peak around the 0% gay, anotehr one with a smaller peak around the 100% gay, and the long trail meeting in the middle.


Like this :


XX
X
X
X
X XX
X X
XXX
0% gay 100% gay


I keep hearing "everybody has a little gay in them" but I get the feeling that in reality most people are not "in the middle" but at those extrem. The minority being in the middle.

Aepervius
30th April 2011, 11:23 AM
Very true, but the point Gumboot was making, is that for the reason he said and even because of what you said, a "Homosexual - Heterosexual" scale just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps. But what sort of scale would you use then ? Straight/non straight (but not forcefully gay at 0% straight?).

So you could be 17% straight, 1.3% homosexual, 13% shoe fetishist 11% asphixionist 2% pedophile 19% sado 7% maso (does not come to 100%) :D ?

Taarkin
30th April 2011, 11:25 AM
I don't think a man would need to be turned off by a man in order to be straight. Couldn't he just be neutral to the man?
Nope, if you don't instantly gouge your eyes out upon seeing a dude's butt you're a flamer.
http://youtu.be/-PyGmfRzeSE

JFrankA
30th April 2011, 12:32 PM
Perhaps. But what sort of scale would you use then ? Straight/non straight (but not forcefully gay at 0% straight?).

So you could be 17% straight, 1.3% homosexual, 13% shoe fetishist 11% asphixionist 2% pedophile 19% sado 7% maso (does not come to 100%) :D ?

There can't be a scale at all. There's a basic sexual attraction, and all the other stuff. The basic sexual attraction is what people call themselves, (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual) and cannot change. But circumstances, emotions, peer pressure, intelligent reasons, etc, etc, can make some act like it seems like they aren't what they say their basic sexual attraction is.

Again, taste in food is the only analogy I can think of.

Cainkane1
30th April 2011, 12:39 PM
i sure as hell never choose to be queer.
it was the way i was born.
Straights need to ask themselves when they chose to be straight. I mean were they scratching their head and asking themselves hmmm do I want to be gay or straight? Oh I know. I'll go with the majority and be attracted to the opposite sex.

ThunderChunky
30th April 2011, 04:11 PM
Being heterosexual, I had no idea the position of society was bringing such misery on the homosexual element in society, so aptly stated in some of the posts in this very long thread. Being an atheist and knowing the science involved in all this, I have long been amazed at the ignorant statements made people of the church about it being unnatural and able to be changed.

<snip>

In response, the church seeks to regress society back to the old faith to correct the problems. That, however, is not going to happen. It is not as though the patriarchal/monogamous sytem has to be so brutal with homosexuality. A p/m system could (and I think, will) be eventually establish that can preserve a patriarchal culture and marital system in a contracted agreement between the two to cultures or ways of life.

Sounds like a lot of unsubstantiated BS.

Jono
2nd May 2011, 10:29 AM
I don't think a man would need to be turned off by a man in order to be straight. Couldn't he just be neutral to the man?

Neutrality is kind of a turn-off though in itself. :crowded:

ZirconBlue
2nd May 2011, 12:20 PM
That's just it. I don't think it's simple depends on circumstance. It's a mixture.

On this point, we're in violent agreement. ;) The scale is a useful model, IMO, of our default or general position, but only with the understanding that other factors can alter our position on the scale.


Look, I compare what gets a person aroused is like what kind of food a person likes. For example, I hate tomatoes. Can't stand the taste by itself. I pick them off a sandwich if someone puts sliced tomatoes on a sandwich.

But - crush them and make them into a sauce and put them on a pizza or pasta. Okay, I like it that way. So even though I like tomatoes as part of a sauce, I can't stand them alone.

The basic desire is attraction to tomatoes isn't there, but in a certain circumstance, yes.

So, you're on the far "don't like" end of the tomato scale, but, under certain circumstances, your dot moves to the "like" end. (Although, I'd suggest for this example that "raw tomato" and "cooked tomato" should not even be on the same scale.)

On the flip side, peanut butter is the world's most perfect food. I love peanut butter more than any other food I can think of -- except on bananas. Or tomatoes. Or mixed with honey (bleh). Or.... you get the point.

The basic attraction to peanut butter is strong, but given certain circumstances - no way!

So, your general position is on the absolute "like" end of the peanut butter scale. But, in certain situations you could slide further down the scale. Even all the way to the very opposite end in some cases.

Similarly, you could be highly attracted to women in general, and be at the far end of that scale, but in some situations you can find yourself not attracted, or even repelled, by a particular woman and the particular circumstances you deal with her in.

Marcus
2nd May 2011, 03:14 PM
There is an implication in some of these posts that there can't really be such a thing as a 100% heterosexual male, that given the right situation, any male could find himself persuaded to be attracted to another male.

It's a textbook example of projection, frankly. Just because some men are ambivalent, or 5% gay, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean that they all are.

If I see porn, I am not turned on by the male involved, I identify with him, I imagine what it would be like to be him. The porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement. Without the woman, however, the whole thing would be completely useless.

JFrankA
3rd May 2011, 02:10 AM
On this point, we're in violent agreement. ;) The scale is a useful model, IMO, of our default or general position, but only with the understanding that other factors can alter our position on the scale.

So, you're on the far "don't like" end of the tomato scale, but, under certain circumstances, your dot moves to the "like" end. (Although, I'd suggest for this example that "raw tomato" and "cooked tomato" should not even be on the same scale.)

So, your general position is on the absolute "like" end of the peanut butter scale. But, in certain situations you could slide further down the scale. Even all the way to the very opposite end in some cases.

Similarly, you could be highly attracted to women in general, and be at the far end of that scale, but in some situations you can find yourself not attracted, or even repelled, by a particular woman and the particular circumstances you deal with her in.

Okay. Well, if you want to put it that way I have to violently agree with you on that.

OH YEAH!!! WELL THAT MAKES SENSE!!!!! GEEZ! :)

Seriously, that better explains what I'm trying to say.

JFrankA
3rd May 2011, 02:16 AM
There is an implication in some of these posts that there can't really be such a thing as a 100% heterosexual male, that given the right situation, any male could find himself persuaded to be attracted to another male.

It's a textbook example of projection, frankly. Just because some men are ambivalent, or 5% gay, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean that they all are.

If I see porn, I am not turned on by the male involved, I identify with him, I imagine what it would be like to be him. The porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement. Without the woman, however, the whole thing would be completely useless.

I don't think that that is meant to be implied. As someone posted before, being neutral towards a member of the same sex means that you are not sexually attracted to that person.

However, in your own words "the porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement" means that the fact he is there does something to enhance the sexual arousal, but it does not necessarily mean sexual attraction to that guy. This is where my hypothesis of situations comes in.

Marcus
3rd May 2011, 04:41 AM
I don't think that that is meant to be implied. As someone posted before, being neutral towards a member of the same sex means that you are not sexually attracted to that person.

However, in your own words "the porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement" means that the fact he is there does something to enhance the sexual arousal, but it does not necessarily mean sexual attraction to that guy. This is where my hypothesis of situations comes in.
In that case, I agree with you.

ZirconBlue
3rd May 2011, 07:37 AM
There is an implication in some of these posts that there can't really be such a thing as a 100% heterosexual male

I'm sure there are 100% heterosexual males, but I also think society tends to push people to extremes that are not innate. That is, I think there are a lot of, say, 90% heterosexual males who, due to societal pressure (or apathy), repress (or ignore) that 10%. People seem to want to round off to the nearest 0 or 100%.


, that given the right situation, any male could find himself persuaded to be attracted to another male.


Well, there is such a thing as situational homosexuality, after all. Prison inmates being one obvious example.

Joecool
7th July 2011, 04:00 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

TheNooch
7th July 2011, 04:08 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Think about this bold part for a minute, perhaps a picture of Ted Haggard would help you contemplate?

Wuglife
7th July 2011, 04:14 PM
I think defending homosexuality by saying "it's not a choice" is a moot point anyway. To me it relegates it to something shameful, or implies that gay people "should" change, but can't. Who cares? I don't care if it is a "choice" or not, and really dissecting this question can go deeper and deeper until it begins to segue into other topics. For me it simply doesn't matter.

I have no problem with LGBT people. I don't care if some of them "chose" to "be gay" (a concept I don't even think of, much) just like I don't care if someone "chose" to be "straight". In fact, I think that one day much of society will prefer to do without these distinctions altogether.

If a man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a woman another consenting woman, or either wants to get married, or any combination thereof, I really can't see the problem.

Personally, I think most people are naturally inclined to find one sex more attractive than the other, but I also think that most people may have some vague attraction to that other sex that is simply outweighed; in other words, I believe most people are "bisexual" on a low level, but are predisposed strongly towards being attracted to, or seeking sex/love with, either men or women.

Furthermore I don't think it really matters a lick to the anti-gay factions whether "being gay" is a choice or not. An analogy: the KKK knows full well that Black people didn't choose to be black, yet it still hates them.

Taarkin
7th July 2011, 04:18 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Wrinkly pea skin is genetic, yet smooth-skinned pea parents can have wrinkly pea babies.

PhantomWolf
7th July 2011, 04:40 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It seems to be more than just genetics as far as having genes that cause it. There are numerous cases of identical twins where one is gay and one not, and even cases of one twin being transgender and the other not. These are hard to explain on a pure gene based level.

I have seen research that is looking deeper though, and there is evidence that our genes can be switched on and off by chemicals that attach themselves to the DNA, and that it is this switching that has a lot to do with our sexuality, brain gender, and much more of who we are. It also shows that our experiences, both in the womb and beyond, can all effect these markers and how they act on our genes.

It seems that in the end we really are a product of our genes and our enviroment, right from the time of conception, though to death.

Following this, it is quite possible that there is no such things as a "gay" gene, but rather a set of genes that determine which sex we are attracted to based on which way those genes are switched, and in some people they are switched in the opposite direction of their physical gender.

Jeff Corey
7th July 2011, 04:43 PM
... For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate...

I don't know of any clear evidence either way, but yours is faulty. Cases exist which disprove your generalization.

Ron_Tomkins
7th July 2011, 05:53 PM
I think defending homosexuality by saying "it's not a choice" is a moot point anyway. To me it relegates it to something shameful, or implies that gay people "should" change, but can't. Who cares? I don't care if it is a "choice" or not, and really dissecting this question can go deeper and deeper until it begins to segue into other topics. For me it simply doesn't matter.

I have no problem with LGBT people. I don't care if some of them "chose" to "be gay" (a concept I don't even think of, much) just like I don't care if someone "chose" to be "straight". In fact, I think that one day much of society will prefer to do without these distinctions altogether.

If a man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a woman another consenting woman, or either wants to get married, or any combination thereof, I really can't see the problem.

Personally, I think most people are naturally inclined to find one sex more attractive than the other, but I also think that most people may have some vague attraction to that other sex that is simply outweighed; in other words, I believe most people are "bisexual" on a low level, but are predisposed strongly towards being attracted to, or seeking sex/love with, either men or women.

Furthermore I don't think it really matters a lick to the anti-gay factions whether "being gay" is a choice or not. An analogy: the KKK knows full well that Black people didn't choose to be black, yet it still hates them.

This is a very interesting and intelligent reflection and I would have to agree.

Skeptic
8th July 2011, 09:08 AM
One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Rule 34: if it exists, there's porn involving it.

Skeptic
8th July 2011, 09:16 AM
Homosexuality might well be both inborn and morally neutral. It's just that the argument that it is morally neutral because it is inborn is a bad argument, for obvious reasons.

I Am The Scum
8th July 2011, 10:26 AM
Homosexuality might well be both inborn and morally neutral. It's just that the argument that it is morally neutral because it is inborn is a bad argument, for obvious reasons.

Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

Pacal
8th July 2011, 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by Joecool
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?


Total and utter crap. Most of my Gay friends have biological children. And we should not forget the Lesbian mothers. In one case the guy had 8 by two different women. And no he wasn't bisexual in orientation. He had always been from his early years overwhelmingly attracted to men. He had been under a great deal of social pressure to marry. It doesn't take more than one sexual act with another person to result in pregnancy. The fact that most Gay men are sexually uninterested in women doesn't mean they can perform the sex act with a women. Ditto for Lesbians doing it with a man.

As for the idiot question of is Homosexuality a choice? Get real! Like I choose to get turned on looking at a cute guy. Like I can just say "Today I choose to be turned on by Guys"!? God! what an idiotic view of human sexuality.

Tsukasa Buddha
8th July 2011, 04:53 PM
Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

There are plenty of dispositions, such as alcoholism or pedophilia, that are innate or genetic and yet many would not say are morally neutral. Of course, how illogical it is depends on the context of the original argument. Was it more about the status of "being gay" or wanting to commit actions that others do not want you to?

There are more positive arguments that can also stand by themselves.

KingMerv00
8th July 2011, 08:12 PM
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Some causes of infertility are genetic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/infertility/DS00310/DSECTION=causes).

Alan
8th July 2011, 08:13 PM
Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.
There's the naturalistic fallacy.

Skeptic
9th July 2011, 12:48 AM
Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

We are all born with a lot of tendencies -- whether sexual or otherwise. We have perhaps an inborn tendency to violence on the one hand and to generosity on the other. But if someone acts violently he is (usually) to blame, and if someone acts generously he is (usually) to praise. Because our actions, if not our tendencies, are within our control. So whether homosexual action is good, bad, or neutral has nothing to do with our inborn tendencies.

ETA: Mr. Buddha said it better.

Dani
13th July 2011, 07:00 AM
Some causes of infertility are genetic (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/infertility/DS00310/DSECTION=causes).

I was going to point that out too. So far most responses have focused on the fact that homosexual people procreate, but it doesn't make any difference anyway. Genetic heredity is not copy & paste! There are blond people with dark haired parents, homosexual people can have heterosexual children and viceversa. There are countless examples. Just look at your parents and spot the differences.

bikerdruid
13th July 2011, 09:17 AM
I was going to point that out too. So far most responses have focused on the fact that homosexual people procreate, but it doesn't make any difference anyway. Genetic heredity is not copy & paste! There are blond people with dark haired parents, homosexual people can have heterosexual children and viceversa. There are countless examples. Just look at your parents and spot the differences.

the fact that i am queer, and both my parents were straight is an indication.

DC
13th July 2011, 09:29 AM
We are all born with a lot of tendencies -- whether sexual or otherwise. We have perhaps an inborn tendency to violence on the one hand and to generosity on the other. But if someone acts violently he is (usually) to blame, and if someone acts generously he is (usually) to praise. Because our actions, if not our tendencies, are within our control. So whether homosexual action is good, bad, or neutral has nothing to do with our inborn tendencies.

ETA: Mr. Buddha said it better.

violent tendencies are accepted as long the one experiencing the violence likes it. for example sado maso.
but when this violence goes to people that don't want t they get protected and the offender punished.
the same goes for homosexuality, alsong a homosexual person has a relationship with someone that shares the love it is fine and nobody outside that relationship should be bothered.