(April 1, 2013 at 7:21 pm)John V Wrote:

(April 1, 2013 at 5:09 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: I definitely think Rhythm's point needs addressing.

Regarding him personally, he seems somewhat obsessed with cock. I don't believe him at all.

In general, consider sexuality across cultures and time. It's fairly variable. Our current western paradigm is fairly new.

For instance, there was a time in Greece when it was normal for a teenage male to take a receptive sexual role with an older male. Upon becoming an adult, it was considered wrong to take the receptive role, but OK to take the penetrative role with men or women. They didn't even look at it as male/female, but rather penetrative/receptive.

Does it make more sense to think that these people had a difference in genome which produced this pattern at birth, or that people naturally fall somewhere on a scale of bisexuality and culture has a lot to do with how it's expressed?

Quote:And does a person need to have sex with the opposite sex to be gay or is the desire alone enough to warrant the label?

Again, I'm arguing against such labeling.

Whaterist, Minimalist, Ryantology, a few others on here have all made posts that seemed reasonable and had arguments that resembled the way that people typically argue about religion. Rhythm has not made a single post that I can see that resembles anything the way that grown ups typically debate whether God exists, everyone of his posts without exception has been pure adolescent stupidity.

(April 2, 2013 at 11:36 am)Psykhronic Wrote: Look, I cannot fall in love with women nor can I have the sort of connections that become the best sex ever, but yes if that were to happen I'd think differently. So what?

So, some in this thread have argued that such tastes cannot be acquired.

Quote:And I dont want to delve into things I dont know much about, but sure it's all about you.

There's not much delving required. I described another cultural view of sexuality which differs greatly from our own. Unless you think that those men had some special gene which produced that sexuality, then we see that culture plays a significant role in whether bisexual tendencies are expressed or repressed.

I once experimented with having sex with another guy when I was younger. He was bi, I was curious. To others, he was attractive and I have to admit to respecting his physical appearance, though I found I couldn't be attracted, despite the attempt to do so. I couldn't even get my dick hard to try it. I came to the conclusion that I was straight. I've never been attracted to other men. I had actually been curious enough about the so-called "bi-paradigm," though I didn't call it that, to see if I, too, was bisexual, and clearly I was not.

As I've said before and as I've linked in this thread before to information supporting this; homosexuality is not attributed to any one factor but instead to multiple factors. Given that we are not sexual creatures at birth, and indeed are not sexual creatures until puberty, yet those who are homosexual have exhibited tendencies to similarities in their genetic makeup that are similar to one another in very key areas, the simple, straight [heh, sorry] answer is that genetics are a key factor, yet not the only factor. There is no "gay" gene that if switched one way or another determines your sexuality; it's a developmental thing, with genetic factors coming into play to determine likelihood. But it is no more a choice than the choice to become sexually mature. It is simply something that happens through a matter of course.

I tire of chasing Christians around in circles trying to make them see logic on this, however. If you're an ignorant dipshit about it then you're always going to be an ignorant dipshit about it. If you want to slam your hands over your ears and screech the la-la song, fine, you have fun going through life with the maturity of a twelve year old, I'm sure you'll come to do great things, and have fun with that.

(April 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: I once experimented with having sex with another guy when I was younger. He was bi, I was curious. To others, he was attractive and I have to admit to respecting his physical appearance, though I found I couldn't be attracted, despite the attempt to do so. I couldn't even get my dick hard to try it. I came to the conclusion that I was straight. I've never been attracted to other men. I had actually been curious enough about the so-called "bi-paradigm," though I didn't call it that, to see if I, too, was bisexual, and clearly I was not.

Is it possible you'd be different if raised in a different culture with different views on sex?

In case it hasn't been brought up yet, the Kinsey Scale. It's a scale of sexuality ranging from 0-6, much the same as the Dawkins scale, with an X option for asexuals.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale#section_3
Not many people score a 0 (completely heterosexual) or a 6 (completely homosexual), rather most are somewhere in between.

Well given I wasn't exactly raised in anything that could be considered a steady, consistent upbringing [foster child; had a lot of different temporarily adoptive families], probably not. I got a fairly diverse upbringing, so I can't point to any one thing shaping me as a person, definitely not sexually.

(April 2, 2013 at 2:31 pm)festive1 Wrote: In case it hasn't been brought up yet, the Kinsey Scale. It's a scale of sexuality ranging from 0-6, much the same as the Dawkins scale, with an X option for asexuals.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale#section_3
Not many people score a 0 (completely heterosexual) or a 6 (completely homosexual), rather most are somewhere in between.

Someone posted a graphic with no comment so it wasn't discussed.

This supports my view. Few people come out completely hetero or completely homo, and yet that's largely how sexuality has been discussed for some time now.

---

(April 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Well given I wasn't exactly raised in anything that could be considered a steady, consistent upbringing [foster child; had a lot of different temporarily adoptive families], probably not. I got a fairly diverse upbringing, so I can't point to any one thing shaping me as a person, definitely not sexually.

I'm speaking of a completely different culture, point being that such analysis is more meaningful than anecdotes from within a single culture.

But most people are 1&2 or 4&5 on the Kinsey scale. Which shows that people lean strongly one way or the other, but still have occasional to not so occasional atractions to the sex they predominately don't favor.
For instance, I'd probably be a 1, but I haven't met the woman yet who I'm so attracted to I'd actually have sex with her.

(April 2, 2013 at 3:53 pm)festive1 Wrote: But most people are 1&2 or 4&5 on the Kinsey scale.

What do you mean by "but"? If you think I'm arguing that most people are 3s, you don't at all understand me.

You never see a thread titled "Born a 4," or hear a call for a "5 pride parade." And while seven categories is better than three, as Kinsey said regarding it:

Quote:Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories... The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects...A seven-point scale comes nearer to showing the many gradations that actually exist.

Sexuality can shift, but not radically. If you're a 1 or a 2, you are highly unlikely to jump to being a 5 or 6 or vice versa.