Notices
Results 1 to 73 of 73

Thread: "Straight Men, Gay Porn"

  1. #1 "Straight Men, Gay Porn" 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2
    Hi guys, I read this article a couple of days that kind of relates to a situation of me but the issue is I'm not a big science guy. So basically, I'd just like to get some opinions on what I found to be quite an interesting piece. Do you agree with it? Disagree? Why?

    Your answers would help me tremendously. Thank you in advance.

    Article: ‘Straight Men, Gay Porn’ and Other Brain Map Mysteries | Psychology Today


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I was not terribly impressed. For example : it has been known for a long time that there are a lot of people who are not purely heterosexual. A guy might be largely attracted by women, but somewhat attracted by males, or vice versa. Such people might be readily trained to reverse sexual orientation, especially if it is temporary. But that is not the same as a genuine reversal of sexual orientation in a truly heterosexual person. I saw nothing in the article to suggest what they claimed was anything else.

    I got the strong impression that a lot of that article was pop psychology, not science. For example, they talked of a woman with a psychological problem traced back to a surgeon snipping something when she was a baby. That, I do not believe. That kind of minor babyhood trauma driving a lifelong fetish is totally unproven. Just a piece of pop psychology dogma.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I liked the article because I think it corroborates my opinion that while individuals may be born with an instinctual cue to develop heterosexuality, no one is born homosexual...

    Rather, many people are born lacking the subtle heterosexual instinct, in other words they are born "queer" - so they may develop any fixation/orientation you can think of. Often that results in heterosexuality anyway, due to social and circumstantial cues. A crucial part of this idea is that *everyone* is driven - especially during puberty - by undirected sex drive, which demands an object. This is analogous to finding Tripple-Ripple-Vanilla-Rogue-Monkey ice cream one's absolute favorite... of course there is no such gene but if one is driven by hunger it must attach to *something* and satiation develops ever-more-specific "likes" or "loves".

    If that's true, then people do have more control over their sexual interests than commonly supposed. It is not much different than training yourself to genuinely crave raw spinach, by eating it when you're woozy with hunger and your body seriously needs the iron. On the other hand, if you're a woman who spent all highschool masturbating to fantasies of cowgirls, you'll have no joy re-etching your brain now.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pong

    This does not align with scientific findings, which suggest that homosexuality is quite innate. It is bisexuality that can go either way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    I agree with strange, the article is very much just repeating pop science ideas and not actually reflecting the current level of understanding that rigorous studies have given us. The "develop any fixation" thing is very bad pop science and not supported at all by research findings.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    You mean there's a pop-psychology article in a non-peer review popular psychology magazine? I'm shocked.

    --
    Sorry I don't know enough about this research to comment. The source should come with a grain of salt though.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    does not align with scientific findings, which suggest that homosexuality is quite innate.
    I know, but if true it's incredible! Getting genes to cause specific instincts like this is not simple. There is no knowledge of how this one works.

    I'm sure you know that "born gay" is the politically correct thing to say. While that position serves a noble function, I'm not sure it's accurate.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    does not align with scientific findings, which suggest that homosexuality is quite innate.
    I know, but if true it's incredible! Getting genes to cause specific instincts like this is not simple. There is no knowledge of how this one works.

    I'm sure you know that "born gay" is the politically correct thing to say. While that position serves a noble function, I'm not sure it's accurate.
    As a gay guy, I want to know what your basing this statement on....
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I'm sure you know that "born gay" is the politically correct thing to say. While that position serves a noble function, I'm not sure it's accurate.
    And I'm pretty sure that you know that human sexuality is infinitely variable. (As it is in many other animals.) There are some people who are natural born celibates with little to no interest in sexual activity of any kind, there are people who are strongly and only attracted to people of the opposite sex, they are the majority. There are also people who are only ever attracted to people of the same sex, others are flexible, choosing partners who appeal to them without much regard to gender.

    The most important feature is that we are all capable of sexual activity of virtually any kind regardless of our preferences. We just wouldn't enjoy it very much, if at all, if it were the "wrong" sort for us.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    does not align with scientific findings, which suggest that homosexuality is quite innate.
    I know, but if true it's incredible! Getting genes to cause specific instincts like this is not simple. There is no knowledge of how this one works.

    I'm sure you know that "born gay" is the politically correct thing to say. While that position serves a noble function, I'm not sure it's accurate.
    As a gay guy, I want to know what your basing this statement on....
    Well, superficially my "born gay" rephrases and agrees with Skeptic's "quite innate". Maybe he referred to this from Wikipedia:

    The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated in 2007:
    "Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person's fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice."


    I've read similar elsewhere, and heard anecdotal corroboration. I think it was a button too?

    Anyway it's politically important because it deflates any suggestion gays are just acting wrong, or could/should conform as heterosexuals. Then when lawmakers get the message they, not gays, have to deal with it equal rights and freedoms must be provided.


    My position is that simpler than a
    "complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" specifically making men attracted to men, and another
    "complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" specifically making women attracted to women, and a unique
    "complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment" for every sexual orientation not mentioned,
    perhaps it's just that some people lack heterosexual instinct, but develop a healthy sexual orientation anyway.

    In that case we should say "born queer" not "born gay".
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Ahhh ok, I understand what you are saying a little more.

    "heterosexual instinct" though seems to very much imply a behavior deficit.

    Im not sure what the point of switching queer for gay is to be honest, and given the large amount of negative baggage associated with queer it is not a good choice of words for much the LGBT community.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Among healthy young adults, there are six different forms of sexuality.

    Heterosexual male
    Heterosexual female
    Homosexual male
    Lesbian
    Bisexual
    Asexual

    There is little evidence these are learned, and a lot of evidence they are innate. It appears to be very difficult, if not impossible to change sexual orientation through effort or through learning. So, for this reason, we should accept people as they are, and respect them for what they are, as long as they do not infringe the rights of others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    (lacking) "heterosexual instinct" though seems to very much imply a behavior deficit.
    You're not seriously whining about that. We both understand people without heterosexual urges aren't deficient or broken in any way. And we're not going to try pre-empting idiots by censoring the accepted theory that most humans have (hetero)sexual instinct.

    I'm sure you wouldn't argue heterosexual (i.e. mating) instinct doesn't exist, or that it's only cultural.
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Im not sure what the point of switching queer for gay is to be honest, and given the large amount of negative baggage associated with queer it is not a good choice of words for much the LGBT community
    The point of "switching" queer for gay is the same as switching homosexual for lesbian or gay; or heterosexual for straight woman or straight man; or person for woman or man. It helps us speak (and perhaps think) with less bias and confusion. Also I really hate the LGBT/GLBTQ etc monikers.. they're ugly and they look and function as secret code.

    "Queer" to me (and most people it seems) boils down to "not heterosexual" or perhaps "not strictly heterosexual". That's a useful term, and alot more inclusive for this community than an unpronounceable and growing mash of letters jockeying for position.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    418
    Sexual variation in the human species does not conform to strict rules in every individual in the population. It is a spectrum in that there are individuals that are born homosexual or lesbians that will not ever deviate and become heterosexual, individuals that are strictly heterosexual, and many individuals in between that can go both ways. There are homosexuals with many female characteristics in mannerisms and behavior and there are many homosexuals that have male characteristics but are homosexual.

    Genetics plus environment is the driver for which sexual preference you prefer in life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Genetics plus environment?

    OK, but environment means more than just learning. It also includes chemistry. There is a lot of evidence that the intra-uterine environment in embryonic development may have a big part to play in sexual orientation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    In my opinion sexual orientation is a combination of factors; of genetic disposition, life experiences, and personal choices. Genetic perdisposition is the only one of those factors you are born with.
    Speaking about genetic predisposition only there are still a number of factors to be considered. Attraction to the opposit sex, attraction to the same sex, power of the sex drive, just to name 3. In the population these factors would play out on "bell curves". Every measurable human trait does. The actual genetic predisposition of a given individual would be a combination of his or her attraction to males and his or her attraction to females.

    But then there is the matter of early imprinting on ones most nurturing parent. For most people that is ones mother. Her skin color, body shape, tone of voice and probably her scent form the image of the most comforting and desirable female. Clearly this is not an absolute matter. Many people marry people who do not resemble their opposit sex parent, but I believe most do, or at least are attracted to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    But then there is the matter of early imprinting on ones most nurturing parent. For most people that is ones mother. Her skin color, body shape, tone of voice and probably her scent form the image of the most comforting and desirable female. Clearly this is not an absolute matter. Many people marry people who do not resemble their opposit sex parent, but I believe most do, or at least are attracted to them.
    Do you have any supporting papers/evidence for this claim?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    I remember having read somewhere that homo/hetero/necro/dendro - hell - all sexual labels didnt exist in the language long ago as in the roman empire etc. (Dunno if its true or not)

    Makes sense to me. Sex is sex.

    Labels and sexual orientation today might be more cultural, religious, psychological etc. in nature.

    Sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure. The source probably isnt genetical but were "made" from the above.

    On planet Yrgh person X drinks from red water. He loves it and proclaims himself a "Red water lover". But in reality he hasnt tasted blue water, or any of the other colors. He then drinks purple water and goes "Hey this isnt so bad actually" and claims to be a "Bi-color drinker". Person Y drinks red, then tries blue. But on that day the particular blue water pond he tries is polluted by a mineral in the water causing a non-likable taste. He then based on that one experience says he only likes red water.

    I would bet my kidneys that if person X and Y had infinite life spans and were immortal, and tried everything - alot. They would all end up saying "water is water" just like strawberry and chocolate is different.

    Sexual orientation genetical? Highly unlikely.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Raziell

    Say bye bye to your kidneys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Raziell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    928
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Raziell

    Say bye bye to your kidneys.
    Did I say kindeys? I meant kidney. Plural form was a typo. *caugh* (Can still live with one right?)

    My explanation seems totally plausible to me. There is no shortage of people saying "I am hetero" then "I am gay" then "I am bi" and ending up with (excuse my vulgar language) "Fuck it, sex is sex".

    I think genetic disposition is more a random answer relating to form. A muscular, beefy hairy dude may be set on girls only because his body just happens to be what it is. A slender hairless guy with slightly feminine features could be more disposed to multisexuality - again because of form. Not because its "Written in his DNA" but because body types offer different options.
    A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it. - David Stevens
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    A slender hairless guy with slightly feminine features could be more disposed to multisexuality - again because of form. Not because its "Written in his DNA" but because body types offer different options.
    Those secondary sex characteristics are "witten in his DNA."
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    I remember having read somewhere that homo/hetero/necro/dendro - hell - all sexual labels didnt exist in the language long ago as in the roman empire etc. (Dunno if its true or not)

    Makes sense to me. Sex is sex.

    Labels and sexual orientation today might be more cultural, religious, psychological etc. in nature.

    Sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure. The source probably isnt genetical but were "made" from the above.

    On planet Yrgh person X drinks from red water. He loves it and proclaims himself a "Red water lover". But in reality he hasnt tasted blue water, or any of the other colors. He then drinks purple water and goes "Hey this isnt so bad actually" and claims to be a "Bi-color drinker". Person Y drinks red, then tries blue. But on that day the particular blue water pond he tries is polluted by a mineral in the water causing a non-likable taste. He then based on that one experience says he only likes red water.

    I would bet my kidneys that if person X and Y had infinite life spans and were immortal, and tried everything - alot. They would all end up saying "water is water" just like strawberry and chocolate is different.

    Sexual orientation genetical? Highly unlikely.
    Except valid viable research papers are showing repeatedly that it is in part at least genetic.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Raziell View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Raziell

    Say bye bye to your kidneys.
    Did I say kindeys? I meant kidney. Plural form was a typo. *caugh* (Can still live with one right?)

    My explanation seems totally plausible to me. There is no shortage of people saying "I am hetero" then "I am gay" then "I am bi" and ending up with (excuse my vulgar language) "Fuck it, sex is sex".

    I think genetic disposition is more a random answer relating to form. A muscular, beefy hairy dude may be set on girls only because his body just happens to be what it is. A slender hairless guy with slightly feminine features could be more disposed to multisexuality - again because of form. Not because its "Written in his DNA" but because body types offer different options.
    Except neither of those two body types have anything to do with sexual orientation, drop the cliche media stereotypes of what a guy guy looks like, we are pretty much a 10% cross section of the human race, covering the full spectrum.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Except valid viable research papers are showing repeatedly that it is in part at least genetic.
    That's predictable in our species by the importance of society, family structure, and division of labour. Even a small extended family functions better when some members don't breed. The "gay genes" thrive because a queer auntie's kin, who carry her genes, are advantaged over the course of their lives by having her in the family.

    This hypothesis predicts some people will be born as non-breeders. The simplest solution, genetically, is to switch off the instinct to breed.

    This hypothesis is politically useful as a theory informing "family values". People bandying that term today take the position that each and every man and woman ought to find a mate and have children. We can inform them that is not the optimal arrangement. We can show how inclusion of non-breeding family members actually strengthens a family, and ultimately produces more successful offspring. Then we can all agree on an improved understanding of family values, that everybody can live by.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    And yet there are homosexual species found in myriads of non-social structure animals, such as penguins.

    Oh and by the way, you do realize that the term breeders is used as a very derogatory and insulting term for heterosexual people right?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And yet there are homosexual species found in myriads of non-social structure animals, such as penguins.

    Oh and by the way, you do realize that the term breeders is used as a very derogatory and insulting term for heterosexual people right?
    I won't forsake a useful word or concept because derogatory and insulting people want to cripple it. We need clear communication and thought here. Case in point: I wasn't talking about the genetics of homosexuality; I was talking about genetics of non-breeding. E.g. worker honeybees aren't necessarily homosexual; they are more essentially non-breeding (and infertile). It doesn't really matter if certain bees enjoy a lot more tongued exchange of honey than is necessary, unless that's consequential to the hive i.e. extended female/female tonguing frees some from the burden of laying eggs.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    why do non-homosexuals even think and ask about why homosexuals are homosexual? you could just aswell ask why are heterosexuals heterosexual?
    because they are, that's all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    why do non-homosexuals even think and ask about why homosexuals are homosexual? you could just aswell ask why are heterosexuals heterosexual?
    because they are, that's all.
    Scientific and intellectual curiosity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    but it's like asking why someone prefers spicey food over sweet. even if the majority prefers spicey food doesn't mean there's a reason behind the minority prefering sweet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It's been clear for sometime that although genetics plays a significant role, it's not as if a part of it doesn't involve choice. Again, as always, it isn't just one or the other - but both at the same time. Clearly, aesthetics and experience play a significant role as well.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    but it's like asking why someone prefers spicey food over sweet. even if the majority prefers spicey food doesn't mean there's a reason behind the minority prefering sweet.
    There is though, even in your example. Specifically food preference is closely related to taste bud density of the different types--and that is largely genetic. Without perhaps some similarity to sex preferences, within that context of what your taste buds enjoy there's experience (e.g., Thia versus German) and health habits (e.g., smoker) that influence the foods you like.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    It's a part of it, yes - but not wholly. Genetics clearly play one of the largest roles. Twin studies show that if one monozygotic twin was homosexual, his/her identical sibling had a 50% chance of being homosexual as well - these were twins that were seperated at birth, if I recall correctly. So if genetics only appeared to apply a 50% probability, surely other factors must come into play. Such as your upbringing, or the people you associate yourself with, the types of activities you are interested in, your experiences. All these sort of factors play into the ultimate outcome.

    Think of it as choice along these lines: It isn't as though a homosexual decides "I choose to be homosexual". It's more like, their genes, the life they've lived, and the choices they make, reflect the outcome of their sexuality. Pretty much exactly what Sealeaf had suspected.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    It's a part of it, yes - but not wholly. Genetics clearly play one of the largest roles. Twin studies show that if one monozygotic twin was homosexual, his/her identical sibling had a 50% chance of being homosexual as well - these were twins that were seperated at birth, if I recall correctly. So if genetics only appeared to apply a 50% probability, surely other factors must come into play. Such as your upbringing, or the people you associate yourself with, the types of activities you are interested in, your experiences. All these sort of factors play into the ultimate outcome.

    Think of it as choice along these lines: It isn't as though a homosexual decides "I choose to be homosexual". It's more like, their genes, the life they've lived, and the choices they make, reflect the outcome of their sexuality. Pretty much exactly what Sealeaf had suspected.

    that's so washed out.
    kids who are raised in a straight homosexual environment (where probably the surroundings include ppl who live homosexually) aren't any less likely to be/become homosexual as kids who grew up in a 100% heterosexual household.

    in the now, you're maybe inclined to say, some ppl choose it as a protest. but a couple of decades/centuries/millenniums ago it just = death.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    It's a part of it, yes - but not wholly. Genetics clearly play one of the largest roles. Twin studies show that if one monozygotic twin was homosexual, his/her identical sibling had a 50% chance of being homosexual as well - these were twins that were seperated at birth, if I recall correctly. So if genetics only appeared to apply a 50% probability, surely other factors must come into play. Such as your upbringing, or the people you associate yourself with, the types of activities you are interested in, your experiences. All these sort of factors play into the ultimate outcome.

    Think of it as choice along these lines: It isn't as though a homosexual decides "I choose to be homosexual". It's more like, their genes, the life they've lived, and the choices they make, reflect the outcome of their sexuality. Pretty much exactly what Sealeaf had suspected.

    that's so washed out.
    kids who are raised in a straight homosexual environment (where probably the surroundings include ppl who live homosexually) aren't any less likely to be/become homosexual as kids who grew up in a 100% heterosexual household.

    in the now, you're maybe inclined to say, some ppl choose it as a protest. but a couple of decades/centuries/millenniums ago it just = death.
    You're not reading into what I said correctly. It has to do with the values you are taught, and your interpretation of those values. You're also ignoring the bit I said about genetics, your interests, your experiences, your beliefs, the people you associate with (and how their beliefs influence your own).
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    but it's like asking why someone prefers spicey food over sweet. even if the majority prefers spicey food doesn't mean there's a reason behind the minority prefering sweet.
    There is though, even in your example. Specifically food preference is closely related to taste bud density of the different types--and that is largely genetic. Without perhaps some similarity to sex preferences, within that context of what your taste buds enjoy there's experience (e.g., Thia versus German) and health habits (e.g., smoker) that influence the foods you like.
    isn't it usually thought of that smokers like spicey food more. so the majority of africans smoke?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by stander-j View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    It's a part of it, yes - but not wholly. Genetics clearly play one of the largest roles. Twin studies show that if one monozygotic twin was homosexual, his/her identical sibling had a 50% chance of being homosexual as well - these were twins that were seperated at birth, if I recall correctly. So if genetics only appeared to apply a 50% probability, surely other factors must come into play. Such as your upbringing, or the people you associate yourself with, the types of activities you are interested in, your experiences. All these sort of factors play into the ultimate outcome.

    Think of it as choice along these lines: It isn't as though a homosexual decides "I choose to be homosexual". It's more like, their genes, the life they've lived, and the choices they make, reflect the outcome of their sexuality. Pretty much exactly what Sealeaf had suspected.

    that's so washed out.
    kids who are raised in a straight homosexual environment (where probably the surroundings include ppl who live homosexually) aren't any less likely to be/become homosexual as kids who grew up in a 100% heterosexual household.

    in the now, you're maybe inclined to say, some ppl choose it as a protest. but a couple of decades/centuries/millenniums ago it just = death.
    You're not reading into what I said correctly. It has to do with the values you are taught, and your interpretation of those values. You're also ignoring the bit I said about genetics, your interests, your experiences, your beliefs, the people you associate with (and how their beliefs influence your own).
    yea and i don't believe any of that has to do with it. you can try and teach a homosexual til infinity about heterosexualism like you can do to a heterosexual about homosexualism, that won't change nothing.

    genetic? so the heterosexual parents have a homosexual gene, cool. so you'll end up homosexual by nature.

    interest, experience, belief? ppl usually have to hide those to act 'normal'.

    ppl you associate with? you won't turn gay by being around gays.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    My hypothesis is that some people are born without heterosexual instinct, but *do* develop sexual appetite and preference in the normal course of... well, puberty. So these people could develop heterosexual tastes or otherwise. For them which way they'll lean depends on chance factors like whether there is a really hot kid in class to get a crush on, etc. For purely heterosexual example we predict a boy will become a "breast man" if that boy is cued to fixate on breasts as sex objects. Sexual tastes snowball.

    By food analogy suppose most people have an instinctual preference for Japanese food. Those who lack that instinct *will* grow hungry and eat something anyway. They might develop a preference for Greek, or Mexican, or Japanese, whatever. It will probably be something obvious to them.

    I predict that most people with this "gay gene" we're looking for, have developed heterosexual preferences. They lack hetero instinct but (by chance) have developed a strong appetite for the opposite sex anyway.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    so you chose to be hetero/homo?
    My hypothesis is that some people are born without heterosexual instinct, but *do* develop sexual appetite and preference in the normal course of... well, puberty. So these people could develop heterosexual tastes or otherwise. For them which way they'll lean depends on chance factors like whether there is a really hot kid in class to get a crush on, etc. For purely heterosexual example we predict a boy will become a "breast man" if that boy is cued to fixate on breasts as sex objects. Sexual tastes snowball.

    By food analogy suppose most people have an instinctual preference for Japanese food. Those who lack that instinct *will* grow hungry and eat something anyway. They might develop a preference for Greek, or Mexican, or Japanese, whatever. It will probably be something obvious to them.

    I predict that most people with this "gay gene" we're looking for, have developed heterosexual preferences. They lack hetero instinct but (by chance) have developed a strong appetite for the opposite sex anyway.

    good lord .....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    yea and i don't believe any of that has to do with it. you can try and teach a homosexual til infinity about heterosexualism like you can do to a heterosexual about homosexualism, that won't change nothing.

    genetic? so the heterosexual parents have a homosexual gene, cool. so you'll end up homosexual by nature.

    interest, experience, belief? ppl usually have to hide those to act 'normal'.

    ppl you associate with? you won't turn gay by being around gays.
    Perhaps trying to teach someone who has identified with a sexual orientation to not be that way is irrelevent to why they have that sexual orientation..

    We don't know if there is such thing as a homosexual 'gene'. All that is known as, there is evidence suggesting it is partly due to genetics - unlike the opinions that have no evidence suggesting it is either nature or nuture, instead of both, that contributes.

    What does acting 'normal' have to do with whether or not you have certain beliefs or interests? You'd still have them, and build off of them, regardless of attempting to appear 'normal'..

    Again.. "the people you associate with" is not subtext for associating with people of any particular sexual orientation. It has much more to do with countless of other things.

    It seems your argument is entirely 'people are born the way they are'. There has yet to be any evidence suggesting it is solely due to genetics. You may as well suggest people are born racist..

    It really is a wonder why people have already come to terms with the fact that, in psychology, it is neither nature or nuture, but actually both that contribute - yet can't seem to apply this fact to similar arguments.

    My problems with the 'born that way' stance is the following:

    1) Evidence doesn't show that it is the sole reason - meaning things other than genetics simply must play some type of role.

    2) Many people who are homosexual state they "always knew", yet it has already been shown that people don't remember things the way it actually happened.
    9/11 Study Shows Memories Changed Through the Years - DNAinfo.com

    3) In my opinion, it's kind of a medieval way of thinking about it. It's an old-world defensive position that has bad implications - and little modern-day relevence, if any at all.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I masturbate. Guess that makes me kinda gay for myself.
    Last edited by gottspieler; March 11th, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    gottspieler

    I bet you are not thinking of yourself as you masturbate, though!

    So tell us. Who is your fantasy masturbation companion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    32
    If you watch gay porn you certainly are gay, there is no big science behind it, that is just a way it is, anybody straight can confirm this
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    gottspieler

    I bet you are not thinking of yourself as you masturbate, though!

    So tell us. Who is your fantasy masturbation companion?
    Touching a man's penis isn't gay? Ignoring the second question. It's entirely stupid. Why would I want a masturbation companion when I can play solitaire in my underwear and avoid paying child support?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    gottspieler

    I bet you are not thinking of yourself as you masturbate, though!

    So tell us. Who is your fantasy masturbation companion?
    Touching a man's penis isn't gay? Ignoring the second question. It's entirely stupid. Why would I want a masturbation companion when I can play solitaire in my underwear and avoid paying child support?
    NO touching a penis is NOT gay. Gay is having active feelings of attraction/love towards a person of the same sex. There are many examples of gay for pay and straight of pay porn actors out there.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    gottspieler

    I bet you are not thinking of yourself as you masturbate, though!

    So tell us. Who is your fantasy masturbation companion?
    Touching a man's penis isn't gay? Ignoring the second question. It's entirely stupid. Why would I want a masturbation companion when I can play solitaire in my underwear and avoid paying child support?
    NO touching a penis is NOT gay. Gay is having active feelings of attraction/love towards a person of the same sex. There are many examples of gay for pay and straight of pay porn actors out there.
    Lol..yes, it certainly is gay. You couldn't have gay sex without attraction. "Gay for pay" is bullshit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    gottspieler

    I bet you are not thinking of yourself as you masturbate, though!

    So tell us. Who is your fantasy masturbation companion?
    Touching a man's penis isn't gay? Ignoring the second question. It's entirely stupid. Why would I want a masturbation companion when I can play solitaire in my underwear and avoid paying child support?
    NO touching a penis is NOT gay. Gay is having active feelings of attraction/love towards a person of the same sex. There are many examples of gay for pay and straight of pay porn actors out there.
    Lol..yes, it certainly is gay. You couldn't have gay sex without attraction. "Gay for pay" is bullshit.
    No it is not, and as a gay man I can say that gay is not defined by what physical actions one takes. Dating women does not make one straight so why would touching a guys penis make someone gay?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    No it is not, and as a gay man I can say that gay is not defined by what physical actions one takes. Dating women does not make one straight so why would touching a guys penis make someone gay?
    I think he might be talking about "getting it up', that you wouldn't be able to get it up for another man if you weren't gay or bi. I don't think that is true though. Sex is more complicated than simply being attracted to either men, women or both.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    No it is not, and as a gay man I can say that gay is not defined by what physical actions one takes. Dating women does not make one straight so why would touching a guys penis make someone gay?
    I think he might be talking about "getting it up', that you wouldn't be able to get it up for another man if you weren't gay or bi. I don't think that is true though. Sex is more complicated than simply being attracted to either men, women or both.
    No, sex is simple for me. I enjoy having sex with women and thinking of naked men makes me sick. I'm not homophobic but it's a hetero male thing. Sex might be more complicated in Ancient Rome, where young boys were forced to please older, more powerful men, but not in the society I live in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    No it is not, and as a gay man I can say that gay is not defined by what physical actions one takes. Dating women does not make one straight so why would touching a guys penis make someone gay?
    I think he might be talking about "getting it up', that you wouldn't be able to get it up for another man if you weren't gay or bi. I don't think that is true though. Sex is more complicated than simply being attracted to either men, women or both.
    No, sex is simple for me. I enjoy having sex with women and thinking of naked men makes me sick. I'm not homophobic but it's a hetero male thing. Sex might be more complicated in Ancient Rome, where young boys were forced to please older, more powerful men, but not in the society I live in.
    Well, great if it is simple for you. I wasn't however hinting at the depravity of young boys being forced to do anything.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf

    Bem's '96 article - recently has found further support from other psychologists.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Edit: J. Michael Bailey

    Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygoticcotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophilepublications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed eitherby asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, askingthe probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation couldbe rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) ofdizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers werehomosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide rangeof assumptions about the population base rate of homosexualityand ascertainment bias. However, the rate of homosexuality amongnontwin biological siblings, as reported by probands, 9.2% (13/142),was significantly lower than would be predicted by a simplegenetic hypothesis and other published reports. A proband'sself-reported history of childhood gender nonconformity didnot predict homosexuality in relatives in any of the three subsamples.Thus, childhood gender nonconformity does not appear to be anindicator of genetic loading for homosexuality. Cotwins fromconcordant monozygotic pairs were very similar for childhoodgender nonconformity.

    http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...act/48/12/1089
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    No it is not, and as a gay man I can say that gay is not defined by what physical actions one takes. Dating women does not make one straight so why would touching a guys penis make someone gay?
    I think he might be talking about "getting it up', that you wouldn't be able to get it up for another man if you weren't gay or bi. I don't think that is true though. Sex is more complicated than simply being attracted to either men, women or both.
    No, sex is simple for me. I enjoy having sex with women and thinking of naked men makes me sick. I'm not homophobic but it's a hetero male thing. Sex might be more complicated in Ancient Rome, where young boys were forced to please older, more powerful men, but not in the society I live in.
    you are just one person though, and place in the highly straight end of the orientation spectrum. Your personal reaction to the GFP concept however does not in anyway make you correct in the assertion that its bs. I said nothing about Rome either and am talking about modern times only.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Well your personal belief that touching a penis doesn't make one gay is biased as well. Just because "gay for pay" exists doesn't mean we can automatically assume that those people weren't bicurious or closet homosexuals in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    And per The studies by psychologists over the past 30 years it is a persons attractions and not their actions that define if some one is gay.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    What about porn for gay plants?

    Sometime ago I went to visit friends in a different region, and we went to a dance club (with the unsaid intention to meet girls), there were girls on the dancing floor dancing and all the men were standing outside doing nothing but sipping a beer, from my perspective that was ideal topography and as I was about to race to the dancing floor to dance and mingle in the rival-free target-rich zone, a friend said "Hey! wait a minute! You cant go dancing with girls! OMG, people will think you're gay!" ??


    "it is a persons attractions and not their actions that define if some one is gay"
    This makes me think of "straight" Pat Swegart like religious folks that talk about gay as if its a temptation!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And per The studies by psychologists over the past 30 years it is a persons attractions and not their actions that define if some one is gay.
    Haha...that's ridiculous. That's an excuse Bible-thumping latent homosexuals use to justify their lifestyle to an evangelical crowd..kinda what icewendigo is implying. Psychologists can say whatever they'd like. It sounds like an arbitrary definition.

    "Hey man, is it cool if I jack you off? I mean we're not gay or anything."

    "Well, ok...I'll do it even though I'm not attracted to you at all and won't get anything out of it."

    And "gay for pay" also can't work if you aren't attracted to men at least on some level. I mean, in order to get an erection, you have to like what you see and feel. Granted there are such things as involuntary erections but those tend to go away after puberty. Maybe if the guy decided to hop on pop during a man's morning wood period he could get a straight man to cum...but most straight men would end it before it came to that point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    And per The studies by psychologists over the past 30 years it is a persons attractions and not their actions that define if some one is gay.
    Haha...that's ridiculous. That's an excuse Bible-thumping latent homosexuals use to justify their lifestyle to an evangelical crowd..kinda what icewendigo is implying. Psychologists can say whatever they'd like. It sounds like an arbitrary definition.

    "Hey man, is it cool if I jack you off? I mean we're not gay or anything."

    "Well, ok...I'll do it even though I'm not attracted to you at all and won't get anything out of it."

    And "gay for pay" also can't work if you aren't attracted to men at least on some level. I mean, in order to get an erection, you have to like what you see and feel. Granted there are such things as involuntary erections but those tend to go away after puberty. Maybe if the guy decided to hop on pop during a man's morning wood period he could get a straight man to cum...but most straight men would end it before it came to that point.
    Wow, FYI I am an out atheist....

    You clearly have not actually looked into the subject at all have you.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I wasn't referring to your personal sexuality or religion. I simply think that gay is gay. It's black and white. It's not like you can be "kinda gay" or "kinda straight". I don't need to look at what some Psychologists define gay as. Like I said, the reasearch is based on a false premise. the assumption being that those people weren't bicurious or closet homosexuals in the first place.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    No its not black/white. Orientation is not a a or b only situation, and bi does not immediately place one in the "gay bin".
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    I wasn't referring to your personal sexuality or religion. I simply think that gay is gay. It's black and white. It's not like you can be "kinda gay" or "kinda straight". I don't need to look at what some Psychologists define gay as. Like I said, the reasearch is based on a false premise. the assumption being that those people weren't bicurious or closet homosexuals in the first place.
    In regards to "pay for gay", you've obviously never heard of what is known as a fluffer.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No its not black/white. Orientation is not a a or b only situation, and bi does not immediately place one in the "gay bin".
    Precisely. I like to look at sexual orientation as a spectrum. You're never on one end or the other, you're always somewhere inbetween:
    Homosexual --- Asexual.

    Edit: Or perhaps two overlapping spectrums? Maybe more like a circumplex model?
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    accidental double post..why can't I delete erroneous posts anymore?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No its not black/white. Orientation is not a a or b only situation, and bi does not immediately place one in the "gay bin".
    Well I mean you are either gay, straight or bi. That is black and white. If someone says, "I'm straight but would consider having sex with a guy." Then he is bisexual. If they prefer the company of the same sex they are homosexual. If they prefer to bang members of the opposite sex they are straight. Clear cut. Please stop with the politically correct nonsense.


    @stander-j I've heard of a fluffer. If the guy is doing gay porn that it's usually another man who does the "fluffing". What is your point? Even if a women fluffed a man it would still be a bisexual act once he stuck his gopher in the dirt hole.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Ph.D. stander-j's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No its not black/white. Orientation is not a a or b only situation, and bi does not immediately place one in the "gay bin".
    Well I mean you are either gay, straight or bi. That is black and white. If someone says, "I'm straight but would consider having sex with a guy." Then he is bisexual. If they prefer the company of the same sex they are homosexual. If they prefer to bang members of the opposite sex they are straight. Clear cut. Please stop with the politically correct nonsense.


    @stander-j I've heard of a fluffer. If the guy is doing gay porn that it's usually another man who does the "fluffing". What is your point? Even if a women fluffed a man it would still be a bisexual act once he stuck his gopher in the dirt hole.
    Like Pale said, acts don't necessarily define orientation.
    "Cultivated leisure is the aim of man."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    No its not black/white. Orientation is not a a or b only situation, and bi does not immediately place one in the "gay bin".
    Well I mean you are either gay, straight or bi. That is black and white. If someone says, "I'm straight but would consider having sex with a guy." Then he is bisexual. If they prefer the company of the same sex they are homosexual. If they prefer to bang members of the opposite sex they are straight. Clear cut. Please stop with the politically correct nonsense.


    @stander-j I've heard of a fluffer. If the guy is doing gay porn that it's usually another man who does the "fluffing". What is your point? Even if a women fluffed a man it would still be a bisexual act once he stuck his gopher in the dirt hole.
    your getting pretty worked up about this for some reason. Its not PC crap as you call it, its reality. Modern society is what has imposed the b/w binning on orientation. This is in contrast to reality where people, as Strander-j said, fall into both the spectrum of hetero/homosexual attraction and onto the sexual-asexual spectrum. Someone could be entirely straight and one time in their life encounter a person of the same sex that they are attracted to and willing to be with.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I'm worked up because you seem to be ignoring me. I see your point. But when a man has sex with another man, how is that not considered being at the extreme end of the spectrum, which would make him homosexual?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    For the same reasoning that a man having sex with a women does NOT make a gay man straight! Ask the millions of gay men and women that entered into heterosexual relationships because it was what society expected.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I'm the product of such a relationship. I consider my father bisexual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Great for you, but it still doesnt change what HE considers himself.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    You're right. It's all a matter of personal opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    it is a persons attractions and not their actions that define if some one is gay
    Sounds great and I would like to agree 100% if...

    attractions do not just happen to people; we aren't hapless victims of involuntary thoughts and pursuits. For example, the attractions I've reinforced over nearly 30 years are basically heterosexual, but I can still will myself, as a thought experiment, to consider a male sexually. It works: the more I look, the more I like. And I feel that if I jerked off to gay porn I could acquire new attractions at the expense of other ones. Yet I am not even slightly bisexual, since it is only on the rare occasions that I deliberately test the potential (like because of this discussion) that the thought crosses my mind. It is simply easier to continue the tastes/fantasies/know-how I developed, with a healthy vigor, mainly in my teens.

    I think too little credit is given the development of sexual associations. Orgasm is obviously a reinforcer! So it's our personal choices that elaborate, say, a preference for blonds in geek glasses, from a vaguely directed instinct to buck with our hips. The brain's purpose is to develop increasingly sophisticated ways to satiate, and individuals are credited (or blamed) for the paths they've developed to answer their needs - there'd be no debate if this was about any other need - so why regarding sex (and perhaps love) are an individual's tastes supposed to be involuntary?

    I'm not saying that people can easily change course, or that they should. I'm saying that any attraction more pointed than the blurriest instinct imaginable, is developed into cogency by freely willed thoughts we may fairly rate personal actions.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Great for you pong, your a Bi-guy, but remember one person does not comprise a valid study group.. The question is whether your first attractions were to men or to women. I have always been attracted to guys and get very turned off by the though of women.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. "MOND", Prelude to "Critique of the Universe, Introduction"
    By Gary Anthony Kent in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: January 28th, 2012, 12:31 AM
  2. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: October 16th, 2011, 05:37 AM
  3. "Dating" posts split from "Purpose of life" thread
    By Christopher Ball in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: October 11th, 2011, 10:35 AM
  4. Replies: 39
    Last Post: September 4th, 2011, 01:40 PM
  5. is "jesus" a pseudo-science "user"?
    By streamSystems in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2007, 12:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •