Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have always wondered about this custom among the Eskimos, which wouldn't be without precedent, but does seem to run counter to what we know about male sexual jealousy.But sexual jealousy might also be cultural - I think I remember reading where Eskimo/Innuit (what's the current acceptable phrase?) people would allow visiting men to have sex with their wives. There was a reason for it, a social reason, but I can't remember what it was now. I wonder if we have sexual jealously because we regarded women as chattels, historically speaking I mean.
As for the radical gays. So, what is the "radical gay agenda" I keep reading about?
I quite disagree. to act in an homosexual manner is a choice. to be philisophically homosexual is not. that is somehow ingrained. (they have yet to find out how)Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.
You didn't say this specifically, but you seem to inply that women don't turn to women, as well. WHY???The male sex drive is so powerful that if men are isolated from women they will turn to each other. Or many of them will.
And since the sex drive is intended to allow you to spread your genes, it is also accompanied with strong feelings of jealousy if you think you are being two-timed.
Which leads to fights and murder and general social disintegration.
Which is why societies that have survived have created the institution of marriage, to try to control that sex drive and prevent endless low-level wars over who is sleeping with whom.
And they have erected all kinds of taboos around sex. Society "knows" that you are playing with fire here. It's the wisdom of thousands of years of social practice -- not something dreamed up by a great thinker.
The conservative unhappiness towards the gay movement is fueled not really by some abstract moral theory about what sex is acceptable, still less by this or that individual's personal hangups, but by the impression we get that the gay movement is relentlessly undermining one taboo and institution in this area after another.
They are not content with being ignored, and allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. This right has been a de facto reality for decades in civilized societies and is now about as firmly established in both practice and law as you could wish.
But the gay movement is not satisfied with this. They appear to have bigger ambitions. So they are pulling one prop after another out from the complex construction we call "society", and just at the same time that other social and economic factors are undermining marriage, disparaging patriotism, and questioning traditonal values.
And we fear the consequences. That's the real "phobia" in our "homophobia".
I'm confused too, and have the same questionsWhat's an "in your face homosexual display(s)"? They're banging each other on Market Street????
Demands for "special rights and protections"? What "special rights and protections"?
Demands against religion? What are they telling people not to practise their religion? Yes, I'd regard that as unacceptable.
Same for reading of the gospels.
Are they asking for equality or something?
Originally Posted by mattskramer View Post
I think that I disagree with you. Years ago I was physically attracted to a young man. I was passive. It did not get far sexually. We went as far as masturbating each other. I think that I was curious more tan anything else, though he was very good looking. Anyway, our relationship slowly drifted away. Today Im a happily married heterosexual without any interest in having a homosexual encounte
Well, since I think th nature of female sexual desire is somewhat different from male, I didn't want to get into a longer discussion about it. But, yes, some heterosexual women enclosed together without men will turn to other women, although here I think it is more for the companionship, rather than pure lust. There are some obvious Darwinian reasons for the differences, as probably everyone posting here knows.You didn't say this specifically, but you seem to inply that women don't turn to women, as well. WHY???
You are getting closer. In the first case the man is Bisexual, not homosexual. in the second, you agreed with me.Irrelevant. If you find men hot are physically attracted to men and you're a guy, then you're not heterosexual. Period. End of story. Whether you ever touch another man in a sexual way is irrelevant.
I don't know why this is so hard but let me try again.
1. BEING GAY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO. HOMOSEXUALITY DEFINES YOUR DESIRES, NOT YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN BE MARRIED, HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN ALL YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SAME SEX DESIRE YOU ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL.
Christ, it's actually not very hard for people, especially if you are a guy. Your body tells you all the info you need to know. Do guys give you a woody, do girls give you a woody or do both of them. No woody, no attraction. Can I make it any easier for you? Oy.
The different nuances of gayness is irrelevant, and there's no such thing as "philosophical homosexuality". That's just a made-up term to describe something because somebody doesn't like the common phrase.
Well what word would you like to nuse to describe someone who is prone to homosexuality (whether or not you agree that a person is born that way)I think you're splitting hairs.
The different nuances of gayness is irrelevant, and there's no such thing as "philosophical homosexuality". That's just a made-up term to describe something because somebody doesn't like the common phrase.
It's excuse making, really.
Who are you referring to with this post? we are not mind readers.Most people are not.
You seem to like to make these grand sweeping statements, but then don't provide any facts to back them up.
I personally do not believe bisexuality exists. Sex is a very strong evolutionary force and most wo/men have probably had thoughts or experiences with same sex but fundamentally that continuum all behavior runs along would seem to tilt one way? How confusing would it be to see everyone as a sexual partner?
CorpMediaSux, I like your tag and your replies are smart.
Is that you Pale_rider???
Irrelevant. If you find men hot are physically attracted to men and you're a guy, then you're not heterosexual. Period. End of story. Whether you ever touch another man in a sexual way is irrelevant.
I don't know why this is so hard but let me try again.
1. BEING GAY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO. HOMOSEXUALITY DEFINES YOUR DESIRES, NOT YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN BE MARRIED, HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN ALL YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SAME SEX DESIRE YOU ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL.
Christ, it's actually not very hard for people, especially if you are a guy. Your body tells you all the info you need to know. Do guys give you a woody, do girls give you a woody or do both of them. No woody, no attraction. Can I make it any easier for you? Oy.
Nice of you to say so, It just adds more credence to your hold on you own personal form of Jackassicity.No... but I see you put that same old picture of you that looks like a filthy old drunken bum back up.
Maybe you should put the one of you wearing the tinfoil hat back.
Oh well... either way... you look like an idiot, and sound like an even bigger one.
