Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Johann

Why is it Offensive to Believe Homosexuality is (at least partially) a Choice?

34 posts in this topic

Ignoring what basic visual attraction may imply, what if I said 10% of the time I wanna bone said dudes? Would you say I'm lying? confused? It seems to require a lot more personal honesty than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unrelated, and I think this is the wrong environment to be doing this, but I kind of reject the idea of bisexual people. I know they allegedly exist and that each of you probably knows 10 people who claim to be bisexual. But, I think that everyone is born predisposed towards finding one sex or the other attractive. I think people that claim they are bisexual are just confused, at best.
is this cause Donnie used to say he's bi all the time, and you hate black guys?

But seriously, you reject the idea of bisexual people?

You think the people claiming to be are just confused?

Well, I'm glad we have your hard hitting research here

Kinsey, his scale, and bisexuals can just fuck right off

I am sorry, I should not take this thread off course,

I just find it really easy to make fun of what you said

Oh Phil. WHITE people, not Black people.

(I don't actually hate any group of people.)

I thought it was white men mixing with asians, and black guys complimenting your ladies ass?

I was speaking from my own experience, more than empirical fact,
Glad you mentioned that, I was worried for a second....

and I suppose I was limiting bisexuals to people who are equally attracted to men and women, both physically and emotionally.
so you were limiting bisexuals to a group of bisexuals? That's cool, I guess, ya bigot ;)

I haven't encountered anyone who is equally emotionally and physically attracted to both men and women, and could marry either and be happy.
So what does that have to do with bi-sexuality?

Bi-sexual's definition is not "an equal emotional and physical attraction to both men and women" so please save your small minded assfacery for elsewhere. Also, I don't actually mean to imply you are small minded by saying "small minded assfacery," it's just a hyperbole because I can't believe I'm even having this talk with someone, let alone you. Well Janie's 45% attracted tp men, but since she's 55% with women she's clearly a confused lesbian! ugh.

Everyone I've encountered has a preference. Obviously, by that logic, Eskimos don't exist, since I've never encountered one either.
There was recently an article in Savage Love (not that I endorse Dan Savage, because while I think he has a good or funny point a lot of the time, I also think he's a dink a lot of the time) where someone wrote in asking a question regarding his gay friend. The letter writer's gay friend had been openly gay for 10+ years, worked in the gay community for pride events, described himself as gay, was a proud loud and queer man. However, around 11 years of being openly gay and a gay rights activist, he fell in love with a woman. Not just a woman, BUT A LESBIAN!!! They ended up forming a sexual relationship and got married. They both still do activities in the gay community, and the guy writing the letter asked what does he refer to his friend as, straight or gay? Dan's answer? BI-SEXUAL. Why? Cause despite your claims, it exists. People who exist can go either way, sure they have a preference one way or another. But guess what, I would much prefer to have married Stacey Dash when I was 17. Guess what? I'm 28 and not married to Stacey Dash. Am I gay? Nope, just my preference didn't pan out with my life.

I found this article interesting when I read it: http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

An interesting excerpt:

In the experiment, psychologists at Northwestern University and the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto used advertisements in gay and alternative newspapers to recruit 101 young adult men. Thirty-three of the men identified themselves as bisexual, 30 as straight and 38 as homosexual.

The researchers asked the men about their sexual desires and rated them on a scale from 0 to 6 on sexual orientation, with 0 to 1 indicating heterosexuality, and 5 to 6 indicating homosexuality. Bisexuality was measured by scores in the middle range.

Seated alone in a laboratory room, the men then watched a series of erotic movies, some involving only women, others involving only men.

Using a sensor to monitor sexual arousal, the researchers found what they expected: gay men showed arousal to images of men and little arousal to images of women, and heterosexual men showed arousal to women but not to men.

But the men in the study who described themselves as bisexual did not have patterns of arousal that were consistent with their stated attraction to men and to women. Instead, about three-quarters of the group had arousal patterns identical to those of gay men; the rest were indistinguishable from heterosexuals.

The study isn't conclusive, but that last paragraph in particular is compelling.

Compelling to what? That people who didn't rate themselves as exclusively homosexual or heterosexual weren't as middle of the road as they thought they were? Damn, if what you took from that article is that bi-sexuality is a joke for confused gays and straights alike, then I hate to see how you interpret other things.

Just focusing on this board, does anyone on here fall under this classification? We have gay people and straight people. From what I remember, Aemelia Soporato used to like and date men, and has gotten to a point where she tries to be romantically involved with men, but can't, because she is attracted to women. Donnie I think used to like women, but now seems to identify almost exclusively with being gay (either of you please correct me if I'm mistaken - I don't want to put words in your mouths).

I've started to wonder if bisexuality is a transitional period between gay and straight.

I think I was also looking at it from a practical, legal rights perspective. Whereas homosexuals seem to have tangible rights that they can point to that are being violated (a right to legally marry), I'm struggling to think of what rights state or federal government is denying bisexual people. I suppose their right to marry the same sex if they wanted to? But that doesn't seem like a gross violation of their rights, since, unlike a homosexual person, they can have a happy and meaningful relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

yeah, all they have to deal with is you telling them they're just confused because you reject the idea that they exist. transgendered people are basically the same too, right? Edited by haverchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I present to you an interesting study for you to check out

(where theyalso used a joke of a sample's worth of people)

http://www.scientifi...y-straight-male

Both groups—non-homophobic and homophobic men—showed significant engorgement to the straight and lesbian porn and their subjective ratings of arousal matched their penile plethsymograph measure for these two types of video. However, as predicted, only the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference in response to the gay male porn: specifically, 26 percent of these homophobic men showed “moderate tumescence” (6-12 mm) to this video and 54 percent showed “definite tumescence” (more than 12 mm). (In contrast, for the non-homophobic men, these percentages were 10 and 24, respectively.) Furthermore, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of sexual arousal to the gay male porn.

now is it possible that sexuality is far more complex than boners, or do you really think every single guy that is slightly homophobic is gay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will echo what someone else said earlier. When I think of people saying, "I believe homosexuality is a choice," it's usually followed by them saying it's morally wrong.

On a more personal note, it really irks me when people saying being gay is a choice. This is something I've dealt with my entire life, and I've always struggled with my sexuality. It's not that I had trouble coming out, as I did not at all, but I can't say that I enjoy being a homosexual male. I can honestly say that if a "straight pill" existed, I'd take it in an instant. These feelings have only been heightened by the introduction of alcohol in college, and it's something that's gotten pretty bad at times throughout my years here. It has gotten better recently, but it will still take some time for me to say that I wouldn't take that pill. In my head, I think, "If I've had so much trouble with this, why would people ever think this is a choice?"

I understand that most gay men do not feel this way, but that's my personal beef with the statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more sane to think of the sexual appetite ***akin to our food appetite***, and that is as something that perhaps the more we experienced the more cultured we would become, but that's a radical thought and will always be met with barriers of insecurity and with hierarchical/patriarchal-traditional judgment.

I may never have said this before, but for once I strongly agree with you on something. In addition, the thought that our sexual desires are similar to our appetite for food is not something that would be condemned by traditional morality, as far as I can tell (and I say this as someone who, IMHO, is relatively well-versed in traditional morality). Our sexual desires are quite similar to our appetite for food. However, that brings an interesting thought. Wouldn't we all say that there are activities involving food that are immoral? Isn't it just flat out wrong to stuff yourself on rich food at every meal? Isn't it just flat out wrong to starve yourself in order to be thin and found attractive by others? I short, it seems that there is a way to indulge our appetite in a good and healthy manner yet there are ways to indulge that are inappropriate. Maybe - and this is not much of an argument but just a simple suggestion from the analogy - just maybe, there are inappropriate ways to gratify our sexual desires.

Well it would be more appropriate to look at the "immorality" of food (at least in relation to sex) from a religious stand-point. Various world religious movements prohibit certain foods from being consumed. For the sake of novelty, the Krisna Consciousness movement, for example, forbids strictly the eating of any meat (incidentally they also prohibit "immoral sex"). In other religions certain meats are good and others are "filthy", and there may even be a preliminary preparation process involved to "cleanse" the meat (spiritually speaking).

In the context that you describe, eating all the food to yourself would be closer to only having sex with on person for the rest of your life, in a sense you are depriving others from partaking of a sacred feast! ;-)

It would be silly to fully take these two scenarios serious without some leverage. At the end of the day you could say that your not "obliged" to the whole to share your body , it would just be a hell of a lot more interesting.

My personally view on the matter comes from my personal opinion that the biological nature of morality is regulatory, and that I would not be surprised that people in the past have figured out how to exploit it to erect rigid systems of control. You could say that these are the characters who would see themselves as possessing a superior right than the rest of the herd, validated by some form of virtuous work, or perhaps because they feel a grander vision for the world would not be possible if we had a bunch of beastly creatures running amok, preoccupied with base desires. (food not being a problem at this point, at least in the first world)

In this day and age we have diluted such virtuous work into a world of super-sexualized and de-spiritualized advertisements with religious nuts hanging on to fairy tale stories that their grandparents sentimentalized because they feel the world is going to crap. This also means that we have become the beastly creatures the "grand architects" of civilization feared we would become, and we have in a sense, naturally essentialized sex into a commodity exchange.

This means that a stratified social culture has been created, and in a land where God is dead we have sought to create subclasses of people (i.e. gangster culture, juggalos, etc.) and we have given them a sexual sloppiness that holds the whole thing together, coupled with drug addiction and unwanted pregnancies, literally creating a subclass of people. While members of the educated class seek to marinate themselves, add spices and share each other to each other to delicious electronica. To bring it back to food, it's a lot like going shopping, you wouldn't buy rotten food but you would sure trust whatever Whole Foods has on its shelf, seal of approval, bam. Sex is a commodity, and you gain sexual empowerment through various sensory and mental cues. Are these "conscious choices" we are making? Is our decision making process being exploited through some form of mechanism? Perhaps, maybe a combination of both, who cares!

That is the reality of the situation, gangster folk and juggalos are highly unpleasant and they might steal your shit and stab you. That's not sexy shit.

Nietzsche was right! And someone has to come in and take out the trash. The world is fucking nuts, (I guess people DO need a unifying moral order in order to equalize and function properly), and tribalism is the only immediate solution. Modernity is dead, and neo-traditionalism is a pretty darn good answer. (Evola comes to mind.)

With that said, we no longer need to fear the spiritual boogey-men of the past and we can start taking steps towards a more conscious unifying paradigm, but honestly, I don't see this happening until those stupid monkeys in suits (the heros of modernity, go USA!) stop spending their time playing with what they found inside pandora's box (i.e. Scientology) and let the true spiritual masters do their work. /rant

Also people should stop worrying about who is fucking who and just take the time to stay healthy (there are 700,000 people living with HIV in the U.S.), make smart choices and quit being wankers.

Edited by Savitri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent PM exchange with Phil made me rethink my position on bisexuality, but a few points.

I thought it was white men mixing with asians, and black guys complimenting your ladies ass?

I don't recall specifying the race of the people who drove by and yelled that they were going to sodomize my girlfriend, but if I did, it was to add detail to the story. I would have been equally offended irrespective of race.

so you were limiting bisexuals to a group of bisexuals? That's cool, I guess, ya bigot ;)

So what does that have to do with bi-sexuality?

Bi-sexual's definition is not "an equal emotional and physical attraction to both men and women" so please save your small minded assfacery for elsewhere. Also, I don't actually mean to imply you are small minded by saying "small minded assfacery," it's just a hyperbole because I can't believe I'm even having this talk with someone, let alone you. Well Janie's 45% attracted tp men, but since she's 55% with women she's clearly a confused lesbian! ugh.

Maybe I don't understand what being bisexual means.

My understanding until now has been that being bisexual means being physically and/or emotionally attracted to both men and women. This led me to believe that a bisexual person has roughly equal attraction to both sexes (not a 50/50 percentage split, but rather the capacity to be more or less as attracted to both sexes).

I feel like the definitions some of you are offering are over-inclusive, to the point that the word is meaningless. If a person experiments once, or even a few times in their life, does that mean they're bisexual? Are all prison inmates who resort to homosexuality while in prison bisexual? Does having a homosexual thought, but being a heterosexual in practice, make you bisexual?

There was recently an article in Savage Love (not that I endorse Dan Savage, because while I think he has a good or funny point a lot of the time, I also think he's a dink a lot of the time) where someone wrote in asking a question regarding his gay friend. The letter writer's gay friend had been openly gay for 10+ years, worked in the gay community for pride events, described himself as gay, was a proud loud and queer man. However, around 11 years of being openly gay and a gay rights activist, he fell in love with a woman. Not just a woman, BUT A LESBIAN!!! They ended up forming a sexual relationship and got married. They both still do activities in the gay community, and the guy writing the letter asked what does he refer to his friend as, straight or gay? Dan's answer? BI-SEXUAL. Why? Cause despite your claims, it exists.

I think I didn't choose my words carefully and committed myself to too strong a proposition. I think my proposition now is: people like this are uncommon. (

People who exist can go either way, sure they have a preference one way or another. But guess what, I would much prefer to have married Stacey Dash when I was 17. Guess what? I'm 28 and not married to Stacey Dash. Am I gay? Nope, just my preference didn't pan out with my life.

What would the reasoning even be here, for someone to think that?

- A wants to marry B, who is a member of the opposite sex.

- A does not end up marrying B.

:: A is a homosexual (?)

Compelling to what? That people who didn't rate themselves as exclusively homosexual or heterosexual weren't as middle of the road as they thought they were? Damn, if what you took from that article is that bi-sexuality is a joke for confused gays and straights alike, then I hate to see how you interpret other things.

What I took from that study (I don't know enough about scientific experimentation to say what is or isn't a small sample) is not that "people who didn't rate themselves as exclusively homosexual or heterosexual weren't as middle of the road as they thought they were," but that those people weren't middle of the road at all.

You might argue that the scope of that experiment was limited, since it only looked at sexual arousal, and I wouldn't disagree with you on that, though I don't know what the implications would be.

Anyway, I don't feel strongly or care about this enough to continue on any further.

Edited by Jainn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't feel strongly about this issue, yet you posted a book defending yourself on why you think your opinion was justified.

there is no discussion to have here. there is one correct answer; everything else is just stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will echo what someone else said earlier. When I think of people saying, "I believe homosexuality is a choice," it's usually followed by them saying it's morally wrong.

Thirded.

I've been following this thread for a while. Didn't think it would take the turn that it did. I think we can all agree that the large majority of Christians who are "anti-gay" also hold a firm belief that all gay people were in fact born "straight" and are gay by choice. In other words, "anti-gay Christians" typically will argue that literally everyone is born with a predisposition to like the opposite sex, and people who claim to be gay are just rebelling against nature/God.

It seems like most of the people in this thread agree that the above is bullshit. Some of us are just born to be gay. Maybe it's a genetic anomaly, like gingerism. I expect within a couple of decades a neo-nazi style group will rise up and call for the genocide of all gays and gingers, in defense of "cleansing" the gene pool.

I heard Joel Osteen (or whatever his name is) responding to an interviewer when he was asked about his position of homosexuality. He basically said, "Well if you look in the bible it says that homosexuality is a sin. I don't hate gay people any more than people who lie or commit any other arbitrary sin. But the bible says it's a sin, and my opinion on it will always be that of the bible." These kinds of statements always piss me off, since the bible also says to never eat shellfish, and that women cannot speak in church, and a shit ton of other ridiculous things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0