When Did You Choose To Be Straight?, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 10:28 PM by Good Wolf
reply to post by NightoftheComet



Actually it was all well and good in ancient Greece too. In fact in some places it was a large part of raising strong men from adolescent boys.

to say that homophobia is a result of closet homosexuals is simply not true.

Well the studies say otherwise. Statistically "strait" homophobic males will physiologically respond to gay porn whereas those who weren't homophobic simply didn't respond to the stimuli.

It's this way for like almost 9/10 of homophobes, studies suggest.

3. the awkwardness generated in a social situation.


This one kind of annoys me. It's imaginary. If you're in a room of strangers and half of them happened to be gay (unless they are really camp and effeminate) you're not going to be able to tell who's what. Since coming out to ma friends about a month ago, nothing has changed, not a thing (in fact I'm the only one who has changed).

[edit on 26/12/2008 by Good Wolf]


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 10:37 PM by Simplynoone
reply to post by Good Wolf



Yes I also believe I could go that way now too if I so choose ...anyone could .and anyone could find pleasure in either one ..if they so choose to ....
LOL MInx lol ....it really was not all my fault you know ..

Hope you had a great Christmas Wolf ..


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 10:40 PM by Simplynoone
reply to post by NightoftheComet



Well I am not scared of becoming one ..I will only become what I want to become and that is not on my list ......I have enough problems with men lol .............and there is no phobia for me ..
I only have a phobia for spiders and driving a car .....(those scare me bad lol}
Oh and dont tell the Masons this ..but in a way I fear them too ..(mainly because of all they may be affiliated with like Skull and Bones etc) .....



[edit on 26-12-2008 by Simplynoone]


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 10:44 PM by Good Wolf
reply to post by Simplynoone


Hope you had a great Christmas Wolf ..

Yea it was alright. I stayed at home and did a 'House' Season 4 marathon. It was awesome.

Back to the discussion, think about the purpose of experimentation. It's to learn something, to discover, to gain an understanding. If someone experiments, it's to find out who and what they like- as if they don't already know what they like- meaning what they like is not something they choose if the have to experiment to know.

And not everyone can go either way, most cannot infact. You and I are part of a special (and rather lucky ^_^ wink-wink) minority . You remember Miriam, the good christian woman who is dealing with the plight of homosexuality. She said in another thread that she felt that (from a sexual standpoint) that she was repulsed by men. She, like most people, have preferences that are preset.

LOL MInx lol ....it really was not all my fault you know ..

What, so you had really sexy friends or something? lol, I know that problem. And I was gunna say "saucy minx" but I figured that I would then be approaching that line and I didn't want to cross it.

[edit on 26/12/2008 by Good Wolf]


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:09 PM by archetype_one
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Sexual orientation is almost certainly based upon your first sexual experience that is pleasurable. This is so obvious to me that I can't see why there is any debate about this. Sexual attraction is like a drug addiction -- after that first pleasurable sexual encounter you want to keep repeating that experience. (Remember everyone?)

So, if you are indiscriminate about your first sexual encounter, and choose to have it with someone of your own sex, and achieve orgasm, you will probably be homosexual or at least bi-sexual.

On the other hand, if you avoid that first homosexual experience, and seek a heterosexual experience instead, you will probably be heterosexual.

This probably accounts for the high number of pedophiles. I would bet that most pedophiles had their first sexual experience at a very early age, with someone that was very young themselves.

Also, this might be a good reason to tightly regulate homosexual pornography.

Live and learn.


I absolutely disagree with this statement on every level. My first sexual experience was with a woman and yet I am a gay male. Besides, I knew I was "gay" or simply "different" before I even knew what sex was. I would say the awareness started by the time I was four - six at the latest and I have no reason whatsoever to believe I was abused. I have a clear memory of my life day to day from very early childhood three or four maybe is when I started becoming self-aware. I remember things from when I was four like it was yesterday.

~Peace


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:21 PM by Good Wolf
reply to post by paperplanes


homosexuality could hardly be considered a "malfunction".


Ehh well, dunno. Well actually I suppose not, because to nature there is no 'right' or 'wrong', 'correct' or 'incorrect', 'functional' or 'malfunction'.

If anything it's a manifestation of the limitations of biochemistry in gestation. Considering the fact that it's likely always "from birth" then it suggests that when we were made, something went... well 'wrong' or 'not-normal' at least.

But nature is interesting. If in fact homosexuality has a function (social or evolution or whatever) it shows how much things can be utilised in the wild, as abnormal as is may be.

All we can say is that the brain scans and all the other research suggests that it is neurologically hared wired in us. The cause will probably be a multitude of things.

[edit on 26/12/2008 by Good Wolf]


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:24 PM by vehemes terra eternus
reply to post by paperplanes



Malfunction is not the right word. Someone posted earlier that homosexuality maybe a way of keeping reproduction in check. I never thought about it like that but it makes sense.
If it were just a malfunction then evolution of our species should have removed it long ago, you would think........

Peace


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:27 PM by Good Wolf
reply to post by Dark Love



Well (in heterosexuals) it's in our interest to know what the opposite sex likes in order to attract a mate, that's a very academic way of stating it.

We can make judgements on people, but not be "drawn" to them. If you see people on the street whom are the same sex and think 'they are attractive/cute/pretty' that's one thing, but it's when you start to enjoy thinking about them that things are different. If certain people of the same sex creep into your mind and you begin to dwell on their features and traits then you aren't completely 100% hetero anymore.

But that's not the same thing as judgement calls.



reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:54 PM by Xtrozero
Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
reply to
post by paperplanes



Malfunction is not the right word. Someone posted earlier that homosexuality maybe a way of keeping reproduction in check. I never thought about it like that but it makes sense.
If it were just a malfunction then evolution of our species should have removed it long ago, you would think........

Peace


In nature it is a malfunction, but then there are millions of malfunctions.

It is silly to think that nature would evolve a species and then say it needs some mechanism to keep the population in check. At 5% of the population I guess it not doing so well, anyways starvation is what keeps populations in check. Starvation also allows for the survival of the fittest which is what nature is all about.


reply posted on 26-12-2008 @ 11:59 PM by paperplanes
reply to post by Good Wolf



My issue with the "something went wrong" or "homosexuality is not normal" argument is that while it seems to be the more reasonable position to take when looking from a traditional standpoint of science, the information that is pouring in at the moment suggests that homosexuality is not at all abnormal or due to a malfunction of the brain. When we understand sexuality to be purely for procreative purposes, the appearance of a sexuality that defies our notions will be classified as a mistake--a failing of nature. But couldn't it be that this is exactly as nature intended it? That it is quite healthy and necessary from a biological perspective to have a presense of homosexual behavior? If the well-being of a species is improved by the presence of homosexuality, as scientists are currently discussing, then homosexuality is not abnormal or faulty. It may very well be good for the species, as I suggested toward the beginning of this thread. This is all I am trying to say--that there is a great possibility here.

We know so little about human sexuality and sexuality in the general animal kingdom. At the moment, we are working our way out of the conventional wisdom of "procreation is the goal". This has been held as truth for so long, but it is apparent that procreation is in fact not the only purpose of sexuality. Understanding this, it follows that other forms of sexuality may have relevance in nature.


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 12:01 AM by Good Wolf
reply to post by Shadow_Lord


If a person is bisexual, it is a choice. They are not gay, they are just horny...plain and simple, nothing more.


Pardon? I'm not "just" horny, and I doubt many others are too. As it turns out I have a very inhibited sex drive and so are more interested in a bit of intimacy, love as opposed to dirty sweaty humping.

As it were, I don't have much choice in who I am attracted to. The particular people I'm really 'on' for don't happen to all be of the opposite sex. The only thing I do have a choice about is what impulses I act on, and I don't really feel like only act on heterosexual impulses- it's a choice I'm refusing to make.

Danteslost
No they're not.They are physically and emotionally attracted to both sexes.Also,most bisexuals have more attraction for one sex than the other.


It's very very difficult to gage. I for one feel that I'm very close to or are actually in the middle [true bisexuality] but it's subject to change over time and there seems to be a lot of sway. It's almost on a case by case basis [case meaning response to those around].

[edit on 27/12/2008 by Good Wolf]


reply posted on 27-12-2008 @ 12:08 AM by Good Wolf
reply to post by paperplanes


But couldn't it be that this is exactly as nature intended it?


No, for one very simple reason. Nature doesn't "intend" squat. Nature is inanimate, it has no intentions. However, change in nature (and I'm talking in the animal kingdom now) is driven by mistakes.

I personally believe that homosexuality has pretty much always existed since genders emerged. At such a time it would be a hindrance to our detriment, however the times have a-moved on. It seems now that homosexuality is actually utilised in the wild.

It's a fault, it's not normal but it's not inherently wrong or useless, on the contrary in fact. As you've pointed out it can paradoxically be beneficial to the entire species, used as a tool of refinement.

"Good mistake"
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^