posted
I've never really thought about what comes naturally to me as "lucky". That question made me think it through. I am lucky. I'll live a full sexual life and I won't end up an elderly, lonely impotent homosexual. Even when my partner dies, I'll have children and grandchildren that are really my own. Adoption love isn't the same as actually seeing yourself in them.
Thank you for that question. I am lucky to be in line with the vast majority of society. It isn't often you consider yourself to be lucky for being normal.
The best feeling I ever felt was having a dislocated joint returned to position. Oh, what a relief. No better pleasure than the alleviation of pain.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since you have defined pedophilia as an attraction to "prepubescent" kids. I assume you ascribe to the belief that if "It bleeds, it breeds".
It's more likely that he's simply aware of the actual definition of "pedophilia," which involves attraction to pre-pubescent children. A 35-year-old man who is attracted to a 15-year-old girl is not technically a pedophile.
Well, Tom, I'll come clean and admit it might also be a little bit of a sensitive subject for me. My partner was 14 when we first started going out, and I was... not 14. I'm not massively older than her, but I am enough older that many people thought it was inappropriate. Okay, I'm 4 years older than her. So that technicality is important to me.
There was, however, no "breeding" involved. Thanks for that beautiful adage though, Mal. Wonderful.
Honestly, speaking as somebody who truly values the principles of liberty and freedom (and libertarianism) that make our country great, I think your attitude towards homosexuality is shameful, Mal.
Also, regarding my partner: For those that care (which is, I'm guessing, none of you), we've been together for several years past when it stopped being seen as somewhat creepy, and are still extremely happy. We might get around to breeding one of these days, but we think that's still several years off.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not attempting to express an attitude towards homosexuality. I really do not care. I'm pro life and opposed to illegal immigration. The libertarian party embraces open borders and is pro choice, yet I'm a proud libertarian. How can I reconcile such things? I'm a true libertarian. I believe in individual freedom. In our country a woman has the legal right to have an abortion and I am free to express my opposition to it. People are free to be homosexuals and do as they please and I'm free to express my opinion.
I haven't expressed an opinion of hate. I've only countered the "natural behavior" arguments. Naturally, humans are depraved, murdering, thieving, raping, survival of the fittest, selfish beings.
I'm happy for you and your partner. From the sounds of it, your partner wasn't a victim and you love one another. You are fortunate to not have landed in jail. I didn't attempt to equate homosexuality, pedophilia, polygamy and bestiality on a moral level, rather an ever changing societal acceptance/legal level.
From a historical perspective, the age and polygamy laws are recent discriminatory phenomena. 90% of human history, homosexuality was never accepted as much as having five 13 year old wives.
There will always be homosexuals. Do what you want to do, within the law. If you want a civil union, great. Don't try to redefine marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The union of a man and man is not the same as the union of a man and a woman. It doesn't deserve the same name....it is different. Of course, I'm the guy who hates the fact you can't use the terms: waitress, mailman and stewardess anymore. It's unfortunate that the word has to be the same. A waiter and a waitress are the same in my mind. Neither is better or worse, only one is man and one is woman. Marriage is man and woman. Give them the same rights, but it isn't the same thing.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, now that polygamy has entered the picture I suppose there is an interesting perspective offered by evolutionary psychology that might be explored -- in relation to whether homosexuality is positive to reproduction or not. In males, no -- in females, yes.
No matter how you look at it, male homosexuality is going to reduce the amount of genes the homosexual male will send into the next generation. So in a sense, if it were a genetic trait, even if males felt compelled to marry women in traditional societies, one would expect less successful conceptions if they either did not perform, or performed with lower frequency or desire (which affects chances of conception).
With females it's kinda different. Polygamy is natural in humans. One can also propose that polygamist arrangements are positive to childrearing since, having more than one woman in the household, will reduce the stress of raising children as the responsibilities of the household and kids does not fall on one person's shoulders. Women who were comfortable with another woman sharing the husband therefore might expect her genes to be magnified in the next generation. And if she were also attracted to women she might bring other women into the household and this would be quite positive for the reproduction of these women as well (not to mention the husband). Not to brag but I know a gal who is bi and she has sort of stalked me for the past few years. She even says my kids are really cute and she would love to be their step mother! I joked with her once, when she was talking about a girlfriend of hers, and I said that if I became a polygamist she could keep her. She said that would be awesome for her -- and for me since her friend was also really attractive. I think this illustrates why such behavior would be positive for female reproduction. May also explain why a lot of women I know from the Middle East (where polygamy is far more common) seem to be far more open to admiting their attraction to women. So I suppose that if there wre a genetic predisposition to same sex behavior or attractio it would be negative for men but positive to women. But polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted. At least a polygamist society (in a more libertarian environment) would allow the men who came up short on reproductive value the opportunity to hook up with a guy.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I'll have ... grandchildren that are really my own.
Unless, of course, your children turn out to be gay.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I am lucky to be in line with the vast majority of society.
But you yourself have said that your screen name means "society is bad". Why are you glad to be in line with it?
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent, well thought out explanation. I think in your scenario, homosexual males could also benefit the species. Earlier I stated that the alpha male lion will only drive out the young males when they attempt to mate with the females. If the other males never attempt to mate with the females (or the alpha for that matter), he's still a hunting asset for the pride. The male who isn't attracted to the females is an asset and not a challenger.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: You guys really need to read up on evolution and human sexuality. You're just making crap up to support your beliefs, and it isn't even superficially valid.
Examples?
"polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted."
greatly fills the category of 'not even superficially valid'
it makes NO sense.
and your psychosexual postulations are riddled with these circumstantial personal interpretations that are both methodologically hazy and contradicted by sound understandings of human sexuality.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"polygamy would be necessary to allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted."
greatly fills the category of 'not even superficially valid'
Once gave a gray haired gentleman a ride back to the city -- met him at a local hot spring. He told me about the polyandrous commune he lived in. Most of the members of his group were female and he had fathered (in total) 11 children with several different women. Seems they had a positive view on fertility (he was only disappointed that two of his daughters had joined the Mormon Church).
I read about a guy in the Netherlands a few years back who married two bi women. While it may go against many people's religious beliefs, such a group could be expected to do wuite well in regards to reproduction.
One of the advantages I have heard expressed by women living in polygamy is that they have an easier time with the kids (even though the numbers of children under one roof, or with the same father is greater). When my sister in law visits and brings her kids my wife can be all stressed, but with two women in the household both are calmer in dealing with roudy kids than when alone.
We know that in the days of polygamy and the mainstream Mormon Church, that it was often a wife who would suggest a certain women be brought into the marriage. I doubt too many engaged in physical relationships with sister wives but who is to say their emotional relationships were not as great, if not greater, than the relationship they had with their husband? So biologically, women who are more open to sharing life with another woman (and a shared husband) would be more likely to be comfortable with polygamy and more likely to pass on their genes. A husband who was unconventional enough to have multiple wives probably had higher intelligence as well and so this trait was passed on to the next generation. Seems like a perfect way to strengthen the gene pool as well as explain why female sexuality is far more fluid than male.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you remember that part where I mentioned your tendency towards, quote, "circumstantial personal interpretations?"
You do not help your position by immediately thereupon responding with a massive cluster of personal interpretations from personal anecdote. Literally everything in your response is predicated on "I once did this" and "I once met this guy" and "One thing I have heard" and "This seems like or is probably this"
To top that off, absolutely nothing in your response at all addresses the fact that the statement that polygamy is 'necessary' to 'allow bi and mostly bi women the opportunity to have the number of children they wanted' — you only present a hypothetical based on casual inference that some contrived circumstances might be 'beneficial' on a level none of us are talking to.
The statement remains not even superficially valid.
It's one thing to not understand why, but the means by which you assume to reinforce your statements are only more of what we're talking about.
I'm right now at the point where I do not take any casually inferred idea or fact from you as valid, because when you are pressed for anything to back up that fact, it's shown to be based on shallow personal inferences and anecdote that's been filtered through a preconclusive bias.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I suppose that whatever traits that women have that are okay with such social situations would aslo be expanded in the gene pool if we assume that such social units act favorably towards surival and childbirth.
I think that is all I care to say more on the topic. Posts: 232 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is yet another post that does absolutely nothing to in any way support your notion that polygamy is necessary for bi women to have the number of children they want.
Much as that statement isn't even superficially true, your responses aren't even superficially valid.
You're dropping the topic after asking for examples of the phenomenon in your case and reinforcing it in response to having one provided.
What else am I supposed to say?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Men with men is rather hot... Very hot. mmm. 2 handsome young men.
But this is more than folks need to know. Carry on.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Most women are opposed to pornography in general. Most men will watch girl on girl action.
I seriously doubt most women would like to watch a video of guy on guy anal sex.
Oh, really? I know quite a few.
The problem for it with me is there's not nearly enough kissing and making out... But that is what is annoying about porn in general. Folks having sex in it like they KNOW they are being watched. It would be better if they acted like no one was watching and were really enthusiastic instead of ritualistic.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man on man would probably jump right to the act. Heterosexual men do the same thing, much to the angst of the woman. Men don't require the warm up as much as women.
My wife gets turned on when I clean the house, make dinner for her or play with the kids. There is no amount of physical foreplay that can match a day spent together as a family. Being a good father attracts her more. Any man can touch this or that.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gender stereotype? Liberals like to call statistical majorities "stereotypes" when they go against them while citing them as evidence of discrimination. Would you accuse me of gender stereotyping for saying women make less money than men? How about the minority unemployment rate is higher and minorities and females are underrepresented in the corporate board room? Women and minorities make less money on average. Of course anyone who mentions graduation rates and job experience is a sexist racist.
Most women don't like man on man anal porn and most men will readily watch girl on girl action. Prove me wrong.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: That's twice you've had to qualify the male porn with a specific act.
Uh, that's what makes it porn. You don't need to buy porn to watch foreplay. I'm sure there are women all over this country watching Broke Back Mountain because the guy on guy is such a turn on.
Porn is a male driven product. I don't deny some women enjoy it. Some women might enjoy man on man action. My guess is it's the bisexual women who enjoy it. I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
" Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it. "
I know I'm like, the tenth person to say this, maybe the twentieth when it comes to various subjects, but wow, mal... you know absolutely nothing about this subject, do you?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: -_- Dude is not worth arguing with... It's quite teeth pullingly exhausted. Climbing an icy mountain would yield better results.
You just figuring this out? I thought it was obvious 2 months ago. LOL
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: My guess is it's the bisexual women who enjoy it. I have more respect for a homosexual than a bisexual. Bisexuals just do what feels good. At least homosexuals are following their nature. Bisexuals are deviants....it feels good, do it.
Yo, remember when I talked about how, as a poster, you're utterly incompetent at everything except hurting your own side by association, because you ramble on and on about stuff you obviously know nothing about and are impervious towards self-reflection and correction?
I just have to thank you for hurting your own side even more. I can quote your post as an example of the exact sort of ignorant sexual mentalities we are outmoding and replacing. I can use you in ammunition in bringing gay marriage to the entire united states.
Thanks buddy!
Now stop posting forever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: -_- Dude is not worth arguing with... It's quite teeth pullingly exhausted. Climbing an icy mountain would yield better results.
You just figuring this out? I thought it was obvious 2 months ago. LOL
Naw, i've known this for ages It's why I haven't said much in this thread once this fellow appeared. Because I'd read it and think that would be more productive.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a remarkably well-kept secret. It means that every single student who was invited to the "real prom" was either on the administrations side or a coward (for not telling Constance).
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: Fallacy? How many genes get passed down from homosexual couples?
If homosexuality is genetic then is is almost certainly sex linked. If that is the case then you basically can't breed it out of the population. Because the gene is not passe don by homosexual men but by their mothers. Evidence also suggests that in those women each male child they have increases the odds of the male child being homosexual.
I will use made up numbers to give an example (as I don't have the info at hand) but say in women with this gene the first male child has a 5% chance of being gay. They then have a second male child but instead of a 10% chance of that boy being gay it's 20%. Then with the next one 40 and so on. In such a situation homosexuality would never breed out. This is even more true if that gene also benefits the mother in some way. Say makes her more fertile or makes her children more likely to survive. Even if the sex linked theory is wrong (I think it is essentially correct) and Homosexuality is carried along the male line and recessive. There is also the possibility that having some homosexual children befits the family as a whole. If a homosexual child has no offspring but there brothers and sisters have more than average then the gene will persist. Natural selection is nowhere near as simple as Mal suggests. Not that that is a surprise. His assertion that most pedophiles are homosexual is flat out wrong both in overall numbers and percentage.
Posts: 305 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: That's a remarkably well-kept secret. It means that every single student who was invited to the "real prom" was either on the administrations side or a coward (for not telling Constance).
There were, apparently, five students at the 'fake prom', presumably intending to show their support. They cannot well be described as cowards, having apparently decided to defy the rest of the school by not joining the big "Eff You Prom". So it seems reasonable to guess that these students would have told Constance what was going on. A private event does not have to be kept secret for this sort of exclusion to be effective; indeed, all the better if it isn't.
I think there's some sort of history here beyond what we're seeing. I suspect it's the usual pattern where the rebel wants not merely tolerance - which she has, in the sense that nobody is riding her out of town on a rail - but also acceptance; and therefore pushes her rebellion (that's not the right word in the case of sexual orientation, but I can't think what is - her difference?) on the rest of the town, in effect saying "Accept me, you effing bigoted bastards!" Naturally this is counterproductive. It's an unfortunate side effect of using 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' interchangeably. In a similar vein, atheists tolerate theists, in that the pogrom has not yet started. But theists tend to demand acceptance in the form of not saying things like "Your entire life is built on a delusion; get with it".
Tolerance can be enforced by the state; acceptance can't. As much as it sucks, eventually Constance will just have to vote with her feet, and move elsewhere. The best revenge is living well, or at least that will be true until the inevitable civil war rips American society apart and destroys the usual norms. Then the best revenge will be to become a colonel in the blue-state forces and order an exemplary massacre of everyone who so much as looked at you wrong in high school. I hope Constance is practicing her maniacal laugh; she's going to need it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Homosexual behavior in this argument should be separated between male and female. Heterosexual men like girl on girl pornography. Why? The bisexuality of a female is a turn on for heterosexual men,...he has a chance to bed down two women at once. The man is completely happy to accept his wives satisfying one another, he doesn't want another man to breed with his women.
I carry this double standard over to my children. I have a son and a daughter. Do you think I'll accept their early teen sexual experiences the same?
Most of my female friends enjoy male-male pornography, particularly in written form. One close friend of mine would be more than happy to allow her boyfriend to bring another man to their bed, because she enjoys seeing them please each other. Her boyfriend is bisexual, she is heterosexual. He's perfectly fine with the idea, too.
Men with men is rather hot... Very hot. mmm. 2 handsome young men.
But this is more than folks need to know. Carry on.
The whole idea that so many, particularly straight men, have that women don't like Male/Male erotica is just a self delusion. Many women do like that. They just tend to express it differently. As was already said they usually prefer it in written form (wincest, slash etc..) or soft core (QAF)And when they do like it hard core it's often corbin fisher style porn. (frat boyish pretty boy types filmed with a lot of kissing, caressing and such. But it's still Male/Male.
EDIT Look up the demographics for "Queer as Folk" sometime. The vast majority of it's viewing audience were women.
Well, congratulations, Itumubabwumbabama County. You resurrected the age-old tradition of hosting private proms to keep out the Undesirables. Formerly used against blacks, now used against gays and disabled children.
Please keep representing the true face of the anti-gay movement.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
would be more productive.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
