Homosexuality

[Alexander III]

Interesting that any conversation geared towards a sexual nature turns physical in details.

About as interesting as the fact that any conversation geared towards greed shall turn into a discussion pertaining money.

[cacian]

About as interesting as the fact that any conversation geared towards greed shall turn into a discussion pertaining money.

Ah but that is not the same , greed is beyond money, it is an obsessive URGE to own everything and anything. It is not about the money but it is all about a the power kick the adrelanine junky kick, the mental state that you want more then you can chew and you won't stop until the first damage is done. Money is just a bonus, a feeble icing melting on the cake that keeps you going. Greed is an addiction and is only cured when the outcome of its downfall takes over the greed.
Sexuality is a physical and mental act and yes it can borderline on the physical bit glaring on minus details and going over the obvious but ignoring important bits and that is the psychology behind the drives that make the sexual act itself.

[miyako73]

I've sensed too many poor analogies in this forum. We need to put some thoughts when we compare things.

[OrphanPip]

1) Most straight guys often use women as masturbatory aids, that does not mean they are gay.

Sure, but that just confirms my point that someone does not have to be attracted to a person they use as an object for sex.

2) you did not bother to reply to the whole crux of my argument, which is how would you explain that throughout history there have been various societies were the majority of men indulged in homosexual behavior?

There's no need to explain it, people engage in a variety of sexual behaviours on the basis of social expectation. Even so, it is a far stretch to suggest that the majority of men engaged in homosexual behaviour in those societies. While some Greek pederastic relationships were sexualized, most were probably not. And even so this represents a small portion of the population of those societies.

It's reflective of how I feel about my sexuality. It's reflective about how my university companions feel about their sexuality. And are we really going to discuss how most people feel about their sexuality? Most people think that being attracted to another man is against the law of God and effeminate. Does this in anyway reflect reality?

When a viewpoint seems poorly thought out, reductive, and not readily reflective of the experiences of large groups of people, it should probably be questioned unless there is a very persuasive reason to believe it

I never said it was flawless, but gay/straight is just as flawed.

"just as flawed" would be a bit of stretch though.

This could be said about anyone though. You can use these questions to make two straight men seem utterly different. For instance take straight guy A, the scion of a wealthy family. And straight guy B, the 6th son of a poor family in the gettho. They are both 100% straight. Do they date the same kinds of people? No. Do they hang out in the same kind of places? No. Do they watch the same kind of porn. Actually probably yes. But still you see how the questions you ask are influenced by a myriad of variables and thus kind of useless.

They aren't useless though, because if you took two people who were culturally, ethnically, and economically identical except for sexuality you'd see where the fundamental source of difference lies. Especially when you're looking at something like sexual identity. Certainly the questions would not be useful for distinguishing between straight people, but that would just tell you that sexual expression even amongst straight people is more diverse than the penetrator/penetratee dichotomy can address usefully.

I was affirming a viewpoint, not all of them. Are you in disagreement on this, do you believe that doing another guy is effeminate?

No, but I'm certainly in disagreement that it reflects any sort of vibrant masculinity.

So you don't agree with me, ergo I must be wrong?

No, but to contextualize the previous post it was important to understand that your analogy was not appropriate because my use of the dichotomy later in that post was based on the assumption of the fallibility of the system, thus the fact that it was inconsistent was part of the critique of it.

Tell me what a gay chinese man and a gay canadian man have in common? They are gay. Nothing else. You are making being gay out to be a culture, almost sect like. I fail to see how being attracted to other men means that automatically you belong to something greater. Once again you and a straight canadian will have far more in common that you and a gay American.

You don't automatically belong to anything "greater" but you are shaped by cultural understandings of sexuality, not just homo or hetero, but how it relates to romance and life.

Moreover, I don't deny the existence of overlapping identity categories, it's hardly like you stop being part of Black culture by being Black and Gay. The point is that gay people in China and gay people in Canada share many of the same formative experiences, even if I'd be hesitant to stretch Western Gay cultural influence that far.

Nor am I speaking of a monumental gay culture that all people who are gay become a part of, like the established scenes in major cities. But in general of a larger history of Western thought on sexuality that permeates every aspect of our upbringing and affects people who are gay from similar cultures in similar ways.

1) did not invent anything, merely re appropriated a definition which was used for almost a thousand years...

2) You are right we have no connection to the gay community. But that would mean that unlike people who define themselves as part of the gay community - we can think about our sexual interests both homo and hetero sexual in a much less biased way, as we merely use what attracts us, not what society thinks of us, not what we are told we should be like, neither what we would like to be like, we just use of simple method, does that turn me on? yes or no.

Oh yes, clearly you and your friends stand above society and have no biases at all. A question itself is not an identity. You're just hand waving and acting detached from sexuality, it's a position of privilege. Because many people do not have the luxury of being able to be indifferent about what turns them on. You're just flirting with a cliche soft sexual libertinism that is not really representative of many people. Moreover, I've given a number of reasons why I think it shouldn't be thought of as a representative way to think of sexuality.

Also the way spartans were homosexual is not liked by you, so they are not gay, because being gay automatically means it must fit into your narrow definition of it? Procrustean bed, you are doing it.

They are not gay because gay is a product of modernity, it's about the individual's relationship to sexual attraction, not about the existence of the attraction in and of itself. And what is understood as gay sexual identity today did not exist in Ancient Greece. It's not about my definitions, it's just a fact. You need a cultural reference to define "gay" before someone can understand themselves as such.

It was perfectly legal for a citizen to be bottom, it was just frowned upon and considered effeminate.

Depending on the period, the penalty for same-sex relations in the military was death, and the "Lex Scantinia" law implies that infamia was a possible punishment for a citizen seen to be too feminize by passive homosexual sex, along with outlawing sex with a minor citizen.

By often castrated also you must mean a few rare cases, namely Nero. following your logic it was common for roman sons to kill their mothers too, because Nero did it. One swallow does not make spring. Pedophile was illegal, and like I said before slaves were property and so not subject to roman law, a man could kill his slave and that would be legal, and following your logic you would say that in Roman society it was normal to kill your slaves. You are usually a logical guy, but with this your making huge leaps without reason or rhyme.

I didn't say it was normal, but that they justified it, and they allowed it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've sensed too many poor analogies in this forum. We need to put some thoughts when we compare things.

How so?

[miyako73]

example: eating chitlins and getting shot

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Uh, humor maybe?

[crusoe]

In Layman's terms: As long as I don't have to watch it, I don't care what anybody does behind the velvet curtains of suburbia...serious.

[Monamy]

The ones I've talked to are definitely not. They're dead serious--gay culture is being constantly shoved in their faces.

What? Why such inferior beings alive at this time and age?

And I find this whole idea of doing a guy, being the penetrator, pretty strange. I guess I feel I must say this as a precursor to what I'm about to say--I'm pro gay marriage, pro gay rights, all that. I think a gay couple should be just as free to make out in public as a starlight couple is (I find both equally annoying). Having said that, the thought of having sex with another man just completely grosses me out (and, honestly, anal sex with a woman seems kinda gross, though I wouldnt be above trying it if she wanted to). I don't think it would be possible for me because I don't think I'd be able to get aroused (and I don't plan on testing that theory). Maybe it's because I'm American and the culture around me has influenced me so much no matter why I believe, but to think a group of random guys would all be into having sex with another dude seems not only weird, but quite unlikely. Maube it's an Italian thing.

Here's something weird, though. While I think it extremely unlikely that a bunch of guys would never want to have sex with another guy, I don't think the same way when it comes to women. Maybe it's because of how "girlfriends" act around each other, being much willing to hug and what-not (though, the "bro-hug" is becoming more and more popular). And I'm sure my own fantasies probably have something to with my thinking.

Well, it does come mainly from one's own preferences. And women are simply open and free with one another. But men are mostly defensive and need to feel strong in the presence of just about anyone, same gender or not.

... methinks.

[Shea]

Sorry Alex and Orphan I skipped over most of your discussion.

I'm straight. I have a friend who is bi-sexual. I happen to disagree with the gay lifestyle. That doesn't mean I treat her any differently than any other friend, gay or straight. I disagree with my dad self medicating with marijuana to treat his bipolar state. It doesn't mean I love him less.

I don't believe that the gay culture is being shoved down my throat because I might see a gay couple holding hands or a gay centered TV show comes on the screen. I truely don't care about that.

What I feel is the deeper problem is when people start "shoving" with words, gay or straight.

My publisher dosn't accept gay fiction. Someone saw that and called us a bunch of bigots. Seriously!? In the words of one of my colleagues, you don't go into a pie shop and demand that they start selling cake. A bigot is an irrational hater of people. I don't hate people who are gay. But I don't like being called a bigot just because I write for a publisher who doesn't accept gay fiction.<<<THIS is what I feel is being shoved down my throat.

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

[Monamy]

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

So true. Thumbs up to you.

[OrphanPip]

It's a two way street guys. If you respect other's opinions, they'll be more likely to respect yours.

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

[Shea]

Some opinions don't deserve respect.

If my opinion was that it's perfectly fine to shoot up a movie theatre, then yeah, I'll agree with your statement.

But if you think I'm a bigot because I won't write gay fiction, well then, you can just shoot me, Diana Moon Glampers.

[Scheherazade]

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

[Shea]

I am wondering if certain things are not about principle.

I don't think I would be able to frequent a restaurant which refuses to serve Muslims or Jews or blacks... Or gays, for that matter.

I agree. I would not be able to frequent a restaurant which discriminates in such a way. But by the same token, (if I were a drinker) I probably wouldn't frequent a gay bar. Not because I'm a bigoted against the patrons in it, but because it's not my thing. Bars really aren't my thing at all anyway.

Just because my publisher dosen't publish gay fiction dosen't mean that a gay person isn't welcome to read the books. She also wouldn't publish anything like 50 Shades of Grey either.