Homosexuality

[Lonewulf]

Hehehe....well I am a woman. Why is it that when most men think about two women together, they think it's hot, but when it's two men together they think it's disgusting?

...because the men in question aren't homosexuals? Or bisexuals?

 

[Alt+F4]

...because the men in question aren't homosexuals? Or bisexuals?

Oh I agree that the men who find lesbian sex hot are straight. They seem to think it's an opening act to what these women "really want", a man (of course).

In reality however.....no.

 

[Skeptic]

What source do you base this on?

Well-known statistics about the rate of teen pregnancy before and after the (so-called) "sexual revolution"--especially among the poor?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Hehehe....well I am a woman. Why is it that when most men think about two women together, they think it's hot, but when it's two men together they think it's disgusting?

Probably because they like to project themselves into the fantasy when watching porn. With a dude and a girl, one can pretend to be the guy. With two girls, one can pretend to be joining them. But there is nowhere in a guy-guy scene that the average straight man wants to project.

I, for one, want to be filming.

 

[Lonewulf]

Oh I agree that the men who find lesbian sex hot are straight. They seem to think it's an opening act to what these women "really want", a man (of course).

In reality however.....no.

For some, yeah. That's why in a lot of stories, the lesbian "realizes" that she's just bisexual, and becomes someone that swings both ways... which increases the "hotness" factor.

However, I don't think that all men find lesbian sex hot just because it's an "opening act" in the way you described it. To me, it's like taking two good things; e.g. two hot women; and then watching them engage in something that everyone can agree with, e.g. sexual relations.

It's like having your cake *and* eating it.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well-known statistics about the rate of teen pregnancy before and after the (so-called) "sexual revolution"--especially among the poor?

Quote these "well-known statistics", then, and explain their source.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, off the top of Google's head, here's some:

http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990629b.html

# The birth rate increased from 7 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 in 1940 to 44 per 1,000 in 1990 (tables 1 and 2, figure 1).

# Trends in rates have been cyclical for most age groups, except the rates for teenagers. Teen rates rose, almost without interruption, from 1940 to 1990.

# The number of nonmarital births rose 13-fold between 1940 and 1990, from 89,500 in 1940 to 1.2 million in 1990.

And why the decline since 1990?

# These three separate surveys have all shown that the proportion of female and male teenagers who are sexually experienced has stabilized and even declined in the 1990's, reversing the steady increases that occurred over the previous two decades. In addition, teenagers are more likely to use contraceptives at first intercourse, especially condoms. About 12 percent of all teenagers using contraception and one quarter of black teenagers are using long-lasting hormonal methods including injectable and implant contraceptives.

In other words, it was the sexual revolution and "normalizing" of pre-marital sex that caused the explosion in teen sexual activity and therefore teen pregnancy--as, of course, is to be expected.

 

[Antiquehunter]

Except for point #2, only one bit of data you posted discusses TEENAGE childbirth. The rest discuss out-of-wedlock childbirth. Furthermore, the figures quoted for 1940 - 1990 do not take into consideration that the population AS A WHOLE would've increased over the same timeframe by a dramatic figure - as such, the number of childbirths is probably irrelevant - the rate of childbirth is a much more meaningful number.

Nothing you have pointed to demonstrates your assertion about teenaged childbirths except for a broad generalization about an increase in the rate from 1940 - 1990 - strangely enough no figures quoted - and doesn't address your assertion about poverty having an effect.

Care to try again?

 

[billydkid]

I highly resent the idea that any view about homosexuality but one's own is a sign, not of disagreement, but of some sort of "mental illness" by those who disagree.

This sort of argument--unfortunately, common among so-called "progressives" (but, then again, common among humanity in general)--is merely the same argument of religious believers, to wit, if you disagree with me the devil tempted you. It only replaced "you're possessed by the devil" with that modern bugaboo, "you're sexually repressed" (and/or "you're a racist").

First, I understand what you are saying and I would be the first to say that everyone has an absolute right to their opinion about anything. But it becomes a different matter when people want to see their opinion about things become legislation. Bans on gay marriage are an example. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but they don't have the right to dictate to others how they should live based on those opinions. Take, as an example, abortion (now this is an issue that involves many complicating factors, but lets pretend that it is a simple matter of a woman's rights versus conservative morality - which it clearly is not). Personally, I find abortion to be repellent and oppose it, but I would not suppose that my feelings about abortion give me the right to dictate to others whether or not they can or can not have them.

Homosexuality does not bother me particularly, although I do find some aspects of the more militant homosexual activists agenda disturbing (the anti-hetero aspects - contempt for hetero's and families and refering to straight people as "breeders" like procreation is a bad thing.) But even if I thought homosexuality was a perversion I wouldn't presume to tell people whether or not they can participate in it. I am not concerned with what people think or feel. I am concerned with what they do or cause to have done. Sticks and stones.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm almost finished Sam Harris's Book "End of Faith." He has some great ideas in there. He implies that our hangup on sex could be based on the idea of virgin birth in the christian bible (which he adds is kinda ironic, since the concept of virgin birth of Jesus was probably due to a translation error way way back). Somehow sex is dirty.

So muslim and other non christian countries do not have all these hang ups on sex?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh I agree that the men who find lesbian sex hot are straight. They seem to think it's an opening act to what these women "really want", a man (of course).

In reality however.....no.

What does reality have to do with what someone likes in porn?

As a different way to look at it, it is increaseing the object of sexual interest and removing an object of sexual disinterest.

 

[steverino]

For some, yeah. That's why in a lot of stories, the lesbian "realizes" that she's just bisexual, and becomes someone that swings both ways... which increases the "hotness" factor.

However, I don't think that all men find lesbian sex hot just because it's an "opening act" in the way you described it. To me, it's like taking two good things; e.g. two hot women; and then watching them engage in something that everyone can agree with, e.g. sexual relations.

You mention the word "hot" a lot. I think a threesome with me and two women who were not hot, but, say, above average, would suffice. At this point in life that is what I am hoping for.

 

[wahrheit]

The whole debate about where homosexuality comes from, is it genetic or not, whatever, is begging the question (yes! I finally got a chance to use the term correctly!) that sexual orientation is a distinct, discrete, fixed quality. What I'm getting at is that the whole concept of orientation--a person's sexual desire being pointed in a particular direction--it itself a completely modern idea. People didn't think about sexuality like that in the ancient world. "Caesar likes women" or "Caesar likes men" or "Caesar likes both men and women" is very different from "Caesar possess the characteristic that his sexual drive is [permanently] geared toward a particular sex". Sexual preference used to be precisely that; only now we speak in terms of "orientation". Sex went from being an activity chosen by the subject to becoming a biological drive that controls the subject.

Is anybody really gay? Is anybody really straight? Or are we all just people who happen to have particular tastes? Perhaps categorizing people by their preferences in such a fashion is giving them too much weight. Sexuality is more fluid than such concrete compartmentalization implies.

Excellent. Exactly my thoughts, especially the last paragraph. I wish I had the writing skills to say the same, but since it's already been done — no point in repeating the same in different words.

 

[Lonewulf]

You mention the word "hot" a lot. I think a threesome with me and two women who were not hot, but, say, above average, would suffice. At this point in life that is what I am hoping for.

I'm talking the pornographic ideal, not personal preference.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The whole debate about where homosexuality comes from, is it genetic or not, whatever, is begging the question (yes! I finally got a chance to use the term correctly!) that sexual orientation is a distinct, discrete, fixed quality. What I'm getting at is that the whole concept of orientation--a person's sexual desire being pointed in a particular direction--it itself a completely modern idea. People didn't think about sexuality like that in the ancient world. "Caesar likes women" or "Caesar likes men" or "Caesar likes both men and women" is very different from "Caesar possess the characteristic that his sexual drive is [permanently] geared toward a particular sex". Sexual preference used to be precisely that; only now we speak in terms of "orientation". Sex went from being an activity chosen by the subject to becoming a biological drive that controls the subject.

Is anybody really gay? Is anybody really straight? Or are we all just people who happen to have particular tastes? Perhaps categorizing people by their preferences in such a fashion is giving them too much weight. Sexuality is more fluid than such concrete compartmentalization implies.

How is this practiced in cultures from area's that did not have such things? I have heard that japan was like that until recently. Of course prefering to have sex with men was no reason not to get married and have a family. Now is this that they where being forced to assume the role for cultural reasons or that they lacked the view of homo and hetero sexuality?

 

[steverino]

Is anybody really gay? Is anybody really straight? Or are we all just people who happen to have particular tastes? Perhaps categorizing people by their preferences in such a fashion is giving them too much weight. Sexuality is more fluid than such concrete compartmentalization implies.

OK. Sounds good. But, I mean, so you are not really gay, TM? IOW, if the lighting was right, and she smelled nice, you'd do her?

I am not sure sexual preference is that nuanced. Am I uptight?

 

[wahrheit]

IOW, if the lighting was right, and she smelled nice, you'd do her?

Sure.

I am not sure sexual preference is that nuanced. Am I uptight?

Maybe.

 

[Lonewulf]

OK. Sounds good. But, I mean, so you are not really gay, TM? IOW, if the lighting was right, and she smelled nice, you'd do her?

I am not sure sexual preference is that nuanced. Am I uptight?

For information purposes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

 

[TragicMonkey]

OK. Sounds good. But, I mean, so you are not really gay, TM? IOW, if the lighting was right, and she smelled nice, you'd do her?

I wouldn't rule out the possibility, although it seems highly improbable given how strong my current tastes are.

I believe Kinsey was on to something with "the Kinsey Scale", although I'd add more than merely seven degrees between the poles, and suggest that people can migrate up and down the scale depending on time and circumstance. A very hetero man can find himself attracted to other men in, say, prison, and yet once he's not incarcerated his tastes revert.

Perhaps making the jump from one sex to another is just a stronger form of the changes in sexual tastes within one's usual sex-of-choice. I'm referring to what I expect everyone here has experienced at some point--you find yourself attracted to a different "type" than you used to be. A guy who is attracted mostly to chubby blondes might gradually (or suddenly) develop a taste for willowy brunettes. Although the greater the difference between two potential tastes, the less likely it is for such a shift to occur, I'd suppose.

I am not sure sexual preference is that nuanced. Am I uptight?

I don't know. Some people think that anyone with less fluid sexual preferences is "in denial". I'm sure that's true sometimes, but it seems more likely that many people simply have stronger tastes than others. Bisexuals seem to like both sexes, which people who are not bisexual find difficult to understand. Just as people who adore chocolate fudge-swirl mocha almond mint ice cream find it amazing that someone can like vanilla best. I think it's best to let people figure out for themselves what they like. Just let them know they have a whole menu of options, but don't try to steer their choices.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wouldn't rule out the possibility, although it seems highly improbable given how strong my current tastes are.

I believe Kinsey was on to something with "the Kinsey Scale", although I'd add more than merely seven degrees between the poles, and suggest that people can migrate up and down the scale depending on time and circumstance. A very hetero man can find himself attracted to other men in, say, prison, and yet once he's not incarcerated his tastes revert.

But is that individual sexualy atracted to them or useing the only sexual outlet available?