So when I was working today my openly gay boss came back while doing some back of the house work, and naturally we engaged in some conversation. I just found out he was gay the other day, and I just couldn't believe until he told me.  A matter of fact, he even called himself a "fagot" never ever thought I'd hear that.  I have theory onto where the word fagot came from.  Possibly humorous in nature or offensive, but that's a different story for a different day.

Anyways, I am a new born Agnostic I guess you could say, still kinda fence sitting betweem Atheism and Christianity, but I feel more drawn to Atheism every day...and Gary's case only solidifies it.  Gary was once married, had kids, and in fact married to this woman longer than he was openly gay.  He says always kinda knew he was, but just kinda ignored...but his mid life crisis rolled around and thats when he told her what was up.  I can't really imagine what it would be like to go through all that, on his wife, kids, and even Gary. It'd be difficult situation, especially considering they were married for 15 years.  

Anyways so me and Gary got into the topic about Gay marriage...and we both agree it's not so much the word married that grinds our gears, but rather the "rights" part of it.  Why shouldn't a partner be beside each other when one is about to pass?  Especially after 30 years of partnership, these kinda things came from Gary, and I heartfully agree with him.  Because marriage is a religious thing, and chances are even in East Tennessee, a homosexual person isn't going to be super religious (however with the slight growing acceptance of homosexuality among some denominations, that could change).  So therefore the word marriage is meaningless, it's simply the rights part of it.  He said he could care less about a tax deduction. Love is love.  Agreeable.

Anyways I'm getting off topic, so I told him I'm accepting of gay, lesbian people in my community, however I can't quite wrap my head around the bisexual thing...and he said that's good but disagreed about the bisexual thing and stated "Lot's of creatures are homosexual, take the mental part out of it...what are we Nathan?" I just looked at him, confused as if he was insinuating something "Animals!"
So true so I reply "Yeah but the difference between us and dog is the ability to reason..."
then this truly was an interesting " I guarantee you evolution wouldn't fail on this one, if I go out there grab...well your an employee, if i go out there and grab a male customer by the balls, he's going to get an were technically bisexual by nature" By the way this mainly came up because I asked him if he enjoyed sleeping with a woman...apparently he did, because as far as I'm concerned, pressure is pressure. be it being a woman's part, male's buttocks. or your own holy hand.

But the notion that we are all born bisexual kinda left a note on my mind. I'm in fact a heterosexual male, and gary stated while we may not like mentally, our body most likely would not be able resist such actions, and reactions...what do you guys think? and sorry I know this is a mouthful.

Views: 2348

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

So we agree that bisexuality and homosexuality stems from the brain and its thought process not a genetic defect or biological hormones running crazy.

So when people are turned off by homosexuality or could never fathom doing such a act they are merely programed to think its wrong.
IMO we are born sexual beings, tho it remains subconcsious til a certain age (for me it was 7, tho I only hit physical puberty at 13). I've always felt that same sex attraction - whether or not it's the dominant pattern - is affected not by the conscious brain, but the brains developmental pattern. I feel we all have, more or less equally, that biological potential in us. Same-sex sex is within the H. sapiens species as a whole, it's only a matter of what life circumstances are thrown at us. As I think you've stated elsewhere that men who swore they were 100% hetero, that sex with another man was gross/disgusting to them, yet, will have male-male sex in a prison setting, then go back to sex with women upon exit. Yes we all have preferences, imprinted since childhood, but we all have both ways potential. Whether it's acted upon is not critical.
As I stated elsewhere, I have issues with the definition of rape, I do not agree with the negotiation aspect. To say that 22% of convicted criminally minded males are negotiating their safety by 'allowing' themselves to be 'raped' I think is an insult to intelligence!

I realise this will appear to you to be completely totally NON PC. These men's social programming is refusing to let them see the reality. They are taking a 'humiliated stance' on a normal human activity, which they themselves allowed, cyring rape is but an excuse. As I've stated elsewhere, it takes a damaged mind to 'accept' rape in exchange for perceived security. Pour souls, I pitty them really.

Now I'm not saying that prison male-male rape does not exist, only not in these numbers. There are those men who are gang raped under extreme force, but this is the minority of these cases. And any reasonable person eposed to this more than once should resort to violence to end it, with risk to their own lives to be understood.

(just to be equal opportunity here, IMO there are quite a few calls to rape from women in our society which are not truly as well, just as there are true cases of rape which are not reported due to shame, we can never know the numbers, for no one's definition and tolerance and defensive potential are identical. I realise no means no, BUT... IMO the word needs to be accompanied by action to be effective)
So much of this reasoning sounds bizarre to me, I don't know where to start. To be so sure of others not understanding reality, or proclaiming that a "damaged mind" is the explanation... I just don't know how to reason with that. I have to think more about this. (Btw it has nothing to do with appearing "PC" or not, at least for me.)

Men in prison display dominance, or become dominated. This dominance includes sexual dominance. Even some dogs hump legs as a display of dominance, but most dogs don't! Male on male sexual dominance (or submission, for that matter) is not how most men behave when not in prison. Why? Because it's NOT in their nature! LGBT behavior/preference is the exception, not the rule.
@ Paul
That's ok Paul, no offense taken, I'm used to being called bizarre! LOL I take it as a compliment.

You know some people complain that they find it impossible to conform to gender expectations... I find it impossible to confirm to any expectations! Gender expectations are the least of my concerns, I leave my options open in nearly all areas of life. I've always lived my life as I please, with rare moments of conformity in order to earn reasonable money to live off. I am committed to being ME, at the social cost of ever being considered "successful", for nearly none of our social conventions agree with my vision of an ideal world... :)
@T A A No that's fine... I'm not calling YOU bizarre, and I'm all for you being whoever you are. I support it, and I'm not judging it in any way. What I'm saying is that I don't understand yet how you can be so sure of what you're saying about what's in other people's heads.

(omg, am I stuck in a logical loop here, somehow? I guess we're all trying to talk about what's in other people's heads, wrt to this topic.)
I am not dissociated from my reasoning, I am one with it... Being inside other peoples' bodies and heads is a life passion of mine. There is no end to my curiosity!

I have loved/fucked/eaten/worked/travelled with people from all walks of life/nationalities/criminals/ages/cultures/class/color/religion/conviction/education/philosophies/income in varying states of sobriety.

I am OCD about acquiring/accumulating varied life experiences! I've also spent 11 years in graduate studies since highschool, in different areas, which I think qualifies me as OCD on diversified education as well.

So yeah, I shut up on things I know nothing about, but on the topic of sex, there is not much I haven't explored, in depth, with myself, and others. You wonder how I can know what's in people's heads, I've been there, that's how.

But I cannot make you trust my word on that... you just have to go with it or not, it's a leap of faith... into mixed realities...?
I say this from a person born into a world of biology and atheism,

As was I, but I still don't exactly agree with your point.

While I firmly support the notion that biology is the proper foundation of sexual orientation and attraction, humans have long since complicated that with social and psychological issues. I would say that sexual orientation is defined by biology, but other factors can cause us to act contrary to our biological predilections. For example, a gay man who get's married to a woman and raises a family because he is afraid of condemnation.

The problem is, we don't have a perfect picture of the biological mechanisms behind sexual attraction as it relates to sexual orientation, so in many cases, when talking about human sexuality, we end up talking about how people self-identify. In practice, when we are talking about sexual orientation in humans, social and psychological factors are relevant to the conversation. If someone says, "Hey, I'm gay!", we can't exactly haul them into the doctor's office and run a few tests to establish the veracity of the claim on a biological level.

Now, 'mental attraction' doesn't actually mean anything specific to me, and I don't consider emotional attraction is directly a part of sexual attraction, but I think that all belies his basic point: a response to purely physical stimulation does not necessarily have anything to do with sexual attraction.
emotional attraction is based on psychological attraction first. most attraction laws are based on Pheromones or specific body parts of interest. when we look at sexuality in mammals it is not as easy as insects. We are complex creatures with thought process and find it hard to distinguish what each species are thinking or why they do something. A huge flaw in science is its ability like religion to get people to believe something so it becomes the norm. this is especially true with sexuality. A great deal of sexuality does come from the body or biological makeup. this preference you in orientation you describe comes from a deep seeded thought that man is suppose to be with women to procreate. Which for us humans that is true, but slowly becoming a old age tradition as more women forgo the man and just use his sperm.

"a response to purely physical stimulation does not necessarily have anything to do with sexual attraction."

In mamals it does. the smell the look the feel are all body functions that get you aroused, the mind is what triggers this desire to want to mate or in this day and age get to know someone then have sex. in the ancient world of cavemen it was a need to have sex not procreate. Men and women just get the desire to screw sometimes out of thin air. the mind chooses the subject or object to help us release ourselves for that 10 to 30 seconds of pleasure. Making a baby out of it just happens. In many mammals sex is not just for procreation but mostly for recreation and a desire to just fuck. when you break it down scientifically it becomes something much more than it should. Your ideas of what your sexual orientation will be come from us studying people. I often find i am more attracted to people in general rather than one specific gender. It has nothing to do with being bi or straight or gay. It is how i see the world, which is why we all have different sexual preferences. We all see the world slightly different.
Biology has nothing to do with it.
I can't help but think of sexual behavior in both the natural, animal context and the human, cultural context. The premise made by Nathan's boss (as stated in Nathan's last paragraph) is "we are all born bisexual". The name of the topic implies (to me) a more human, cultural context that comes into play at sexual maturity. We're confuzzedidly conflating two different contexts.

So I agree that part of the reason why people are still repeating opinions past each other here is because--even now--we've not yet agreed on scientific and emotional terms. And perhaps there are other contexts in these threads I haven't even thought of that are adding to the confusion.
Silliness. So people like vibrators and fleshlights. If they were truly turned on by them, there'd be no need for porn.

No, we are not beings of pure thought, and yes, our bodies respond to certain stimulus. Our bodies aren't allergic to the cells of the people of our sex, so there is nothing to prevent the natural response. (Yet, some people are "mentally allergic" to certain things and things like E.D. suppress bodily functions. Except that suppression doesn't even usually result from things that turn you off - it can simply be fear or anxiety or whatever.)

So I see it as this - you've got just normal physical reaction, you've got mental interest that can enhance the bodily response, and you've got mental barriers that can suppress it. A hetero who responds to homosexual contact is getting pleasure from the physical, not the mental (unless maybe they think it's dirty or something, which can be a turn-on for some people, but they're still not turned on by the sex characteristics of the person). And I wouldn't say the lack of anxiety or fear or homophobia that results in E.D. makes you gay. Probably the most you can say is the body is *potentially* pansexual.

But that's rather useless. And that's why orientation refers to a mental preference, not a physical one. It's about what makes you horny, not what kinds of pressure you have a physical response to.

PS: Saying everyone is bisexual is not a pro-LGBTQ argument either, by the way. If biological imperatives supersede things which exist in the mind, LGBTQ-identified people might as well forget about being recognized as having acceptable sexualities.



What would happen if humans grew up without a context.

Started by Melvinotis in Art. Last reply by Austin Weekly 1 hour ago. 50 Replies

Objective thinking

Started by Austin Weekly in Small Talk 1 hour ago. 0 Replies

So you know

Started by Unseen in Small Talk. Last reply by _Robert_ 3 hours ago. 8 Replies

Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service