Need Male Opinions Please

Well, I was het for the first 20 or so years, then I started getting desires for physical love with guys while living in an all male barracks in the US Air Force. Who knows, maybe that experience turned me.

Those reasons have been amply pointed out in previous posts. We are a sex negative culture to begin with due to our Puritan forebears. Ppl are hesitant to look at things with an open mind and prefer the comfort of traditional values as proscribed by Zeus or Jehovah or whatever (thru the proxy of some other humans of course).

With this attitude set in place by our religious traditions, it isn't a big leap to form severe prejudice among males who have their own macho posturing when among other males. Males in packs have always been dangerous, hence the group hate easily channeled to gay men who reject that male macho stereotype.

As for the side argument that we are becoming more sexually permissive, those of us who have experienced over half a century of American culture know otherwise. We had a sexual Golden Age in the late sixties and early seventies as proven by commercial movies, fotos and illustrations that can't be done today.

Robert Crumb published comix then that could land him in jail today. The Art of Sensual Massage broke all sorts of publishing barriers in 72 with nudity and interracial touch that a similar book in the '80s backed away from. It is self-censoring to appease not only the law but the masses who buy the book. For a brief moment for a decade or so in the late 20th Century we pushed barriers and tho they haven't gone back to the lie we lived in the 50s the sexual revolution has stopped making advances. Attitudes toward sex has fallen back to a new tradition of prudery and sneaking around.

On a good note, at least it is no longer illegal to be gay (since 1969) nor illegal to engage in gay sex (since 2003). However, we still have to demonstrate to the good-ol-boys that you don't have to punch ur buddy on the arm - it's OK to hug him.

 

Ya hear that Cletus? We can hug each other now.
I don't what these queers are thinking, I'll be Gol darned, what won't these faggots say next?

Now you hold that there pig whilst I get my pecker greased up for her.

 

That's a pretty Darwinian perspective... what about over population? Not that I'm saying homosexuality is a response to over population, rather that we are no longer small tribes of people living in isolation and fear of being wiped out of existence. So the "natural law" of genetic continuation is currently irrelevant. Sex nowadays seems a lot more focused on bonding and/or pleasure... I'm glad that not everyone is a slave to biology.
As far as what's "natural," I think that humans are pretty fuckin' far away from it and have been for a while. Gay dolphins are a heck of a lot more natural than most hetero humans.

 

Uhh, I think I did make it clear that there was a difference between biological and psychological/sociological sexuality.
What you just said really doesn't make any sense or hold any validity when talking from a strictly BIOLOGICAL frame of reference.
BIOLOGICALLY homosexuality is not productive or the norm.
Population size of a species hasn't got anything to do with biological sexuality, were in the hell did you come up with that connection?

Sex's' main primary function in ANY species is procreation and continuation. Doesn't matter if there are two individuals or 6 billion in a population, the biological function and purpose of sex is the same.

Can you not understand and make the distinction?

 

So you are gay then?

 

There were studies at one time that showed when rats overpopulated (which is a prob with rats as with humans) males started mounting other males. Maybe we who live in rat-race cities picked up on this model.

 

No
But I am areal stickler for keeping such "debates" rational, logical and based on fact, not emotional interpretation of facts.

 

99.99% of the time "mounting" in the animal kingdom is to establish a dominance hierarchy and has absolutly nothing to do with sexual desire.
I can very easily see why the occurance of mounting behavior would increase in an overpopulated enviroment.

Doesn't the majority of rape in prison have more to do with establishing that dominance hierarchy and power and control than it does with actual sexual desire?

(Shale I hope you know my "pig fuckers" post earlier was a joke aimed at that good ol' boy mentality and not you )

 

Actually you couldn't be more mistaken about that. In mammals the whole pleasure/bonding/security aspect of sex IS ALL geared towards the reproduction and continuation of the species.

The sex drive is just as if not stronger than the drive to eat.
It's pleasurable in order to prompt and reward the sex act to ensure that the animals are fucking and making babies.
The bonding aspect is there to ensure that the offspring are going to be cared for.

With higher primates as well as many other animals it is in the females best interest to bond with the male to ensure that the male will help protect her and the offspring when she is in the more vulnerable state of pregnancy and raising the offspring.
Ever hear of a pride of lions where the dominant male has a harem of females? Well the females want offspring from the dominant male to fortify the genetic stock and in turn for "getting some" the male protects the females and thier offspring.

Now humans have added multitudes of layers to all of this over the eons, but the basic source and purpose of these desires and "drives" has been and always will be procreation and continuation of the species.

Just because human possess the cognitive ability (at least most humans) to override these biological protocols and drives in no way negates them or makes them any less valid or powerful.

 

The rat ref was an extreme one that weighs more on crowded conditions than true homosexuality that has been observed in many animal species. Those other observations particularly in Bonobos a very close relative to us is particularly grating to those who wish to claim homosexuality as a "crime against nature."

John B. Calhoun's rodent experiments Published 1962

"The one thing that the rats lacked was space. And as the population grew there were soon too many rats for each to have its own territory and this led to an increasing number of fights.

Unable to control the frequency of social contact, the rats became increasingly stressed. Males became aggressive and some formed gangs, attacking females and the young. Mothers neglected their infants, failing to construct proper nests and even abandoning or attacking their pups. One group of males isolated themselves from the community around them and became exclusively homosexual. "

Of course I got it. I'm not some backwater rube from Mississippi!

Actually, I was an accomplice to my Mississippi cousin who was going to fuck a mare. While we were both on the mare's back I held his hand while he slid over her rump. AS IF! You ever seen a horse cock? Even if he coulda penetrated the labial fold, she wouldn't even know he was in her. It didn't go well - tho the mare didn't seem to mind or was even aware of it.

BTW - hate to bring this back to the homos but this was the same cousin who told me while we were sharing a bed at grandma's that we could put our dicks between each others' legs and hump. I was curious but still str8 so we didn't do it. But I'm sure it would have been more productive than the mare. (We did JO beside each other in the bed - even good-ol-boys do str8 teen stuff like that.)

 

I can dig it... we just have different working definitions of the word "natural." Yes, we are cognitively capable of more than being limited to a "strictly biological frame of reference" so I think that psychological reasons for doing things are plenty natural. You don't, that's cool, I guess. I believe in plural truths, if you want to only believe in one that's fine.

Let me ask you, why did you bring up the un-naturalness of gay sex? If you "don't really have a problem with homosexuality" and the thread is about "Why do you think homosexuals are frowned upon, or sometimes even rejected, by most people in our society?"

 

I guess all I'm saying is what I said at first.
I have no problem with homosexuality, do what you want with whomever you want, as long as it's consentual.

My contention is that it is, strictly biologically speaking, not natural. The natural purpose of sex is procreation, plain and simple.

It is also not normal based on the definition of normal;
nor·mal (nôr′məl)

adjective

1.conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; esp., corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; usual; standard; regular

If it were than a greater number of the population of any given sample would be homosexual.

That's just my take on it.

 

heheh ever been to SF?

 

:smilielol5: Actually when I was typing it I thought about adding a disclaimer about SF.

 

99.99% of statistics are made up or misinterpreted.

Disclaimers are for arguments that don't stand on their own.

 

That is exactly why I always want the facts and source materials they came from so I can make a determination myself. I have a very good eye for picking out the validity or flaws of scientific research and statistics.

I'm actually a bit of an asshole when it comes requiring them over opinion, as a lot of my posts will attest.

That is why on this issue the only things I have commented on are things that i believe are fairly well supported by the evidence. All of the other many facets of human sexuality are more opinion than anything else, so I just steer clear of them.
Discussions or debates founded only on personal opinion are just mental masturbation, and if I'm going to masturbate I prefer the physical kind.

Which reminds me, I got some, ahh... umm, work to do, yeah thats it work. Be back in twenty minutes or so, well maybe ten.