Homosexuality is a choice

[MarkCorrigan]

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]

His second link has the reference.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No need to mention the Elephant Man, when one only need imagine the hideous Ron Jeremy (later in his career.)

That is true too.