No, you are not "straight". Look it up.

Sometimes I get so frustrated at the ignorance. How people never bother to question their beliefs or the rules of the world.

Have you ever asked yourself why marriage is a legal agreement? Why the father of the bride offers of dowry or pays for the wedding? Does that sound the "natural" flow of things -- or like a bribe and binding contract?

The sexuality labels used today are the product of religious conservative thinking in the past 80ish years.

“Strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life.” is derived from the King James Bible, Matthew 7:14. It was quote used by the Church during the Great Depression to convince men that leading a straight life (get married, have children, raise a family, go to church) would cure the mass unemployment and homelessness.

"Are you on the straight and narrow?"

Times were so desperate, that those who went against this conservative thinking were outcast and vilified. Thus began an uncommon era of mass sexual repression and m/m intimacy was forced underground until the 1950s-60s when homosexual activists joined the civil rights movement.

During this time, the word "sexual" was too taboo to mention in public so the activist changed it to "gay", a word that had always meant "happy, carefree, celebrating and partying". It has been said gay rights are the last leg of the civil rights movement.

I believe when we stop using words like gay, straight, bi -- and the exchange of any human affection is universally accepted -- we all become equal.

It was the Greeks, whom we owe our democracy, philosophy, science, art, etc who first acknowledged men who suck each others dicks have less of a reason to fight, kill and go to war. Somehow that got lost after the fall of Rome when the Church rose to power.

The word "civilization" means is a society with a high level of cultural development and acceptance. We're not quite there yet.

Comments, counterpoints, ridicule?

Comments

These issues are probably similar to issues of race, which is also an extremely controversial subject. You could probably make the argument that there are very few truly "white" people in the US, because most white US citizens have a degree of Native American and/or black ancestry. Nothing in life is entirely black-and-white or 100% one thing or another.
 
"I believe when we stop using words like gay, straight, bi -- and the exchange of any human affection is universally accepted -- we all become equal."

I'm all for removing stigmas from from choice and decisions that harm no one, but to suggest removing adjectives all together is going too far.

I'm a subscriber to the increasingly popular notion that sexuality isn't a choice, call it a spectrum if you like, but freely moving about it or being all inclusive isn't something I've ever observed or been told was common.

I can respect the etymology of words as a nice history lesson, but the modern use of straight, bi, and gay have their places as fairly accurate descriptions of sexual orientation.

Simply getting rid of words doesn't remove factual differences, it only limits our ability to understand and communicate them. Proper education and further study will do more for everyone.
 
"I can respect the etymology of words as a nice history lesson, but the modern use of straight, bi, and gay have their places as fairly accurate descriptions of sexual orientation."

I would argue that in ancient Greece and Rome, bisexuality was the common "orientation" for people with a higher education and class status.


Today, sexuality pleasure and sexual desire are grouped as the same thing. But these are mutually exclusive functions. A man can enjoy sexual pleasure from a male -- and masterbation is the proof. So where does his mental orientation come from? Social conditioning.

The word FAG is the most powerful word in the male vocabulary. Its so powerful, that a male knows to reject the concept of male intimacy or he will be rejected. It's the religions most successful fear-based campaign.

Both "straight" and "gay" are new concepts (less than century) in human culture. Before this, homosexual contact was considered recreational sex. Not bad, just didn't produce offspring.

Producing children was much harder then, and thus the outcome of heterosexual contact was respected as a miracle.

But "straight" doesn't mean you just like pussy... it means you go to church, and your objective is to be wed, have children and raise a family, disregarding any other sexual distraction. The concept is rooted in the act of producing children.
 
"I would argue that in ancient Greece and Rome, bisexuality was the common "orientation" for people with a higher education and class status."

The counter argument can be made that sexuality in Greece could have been as much genuine affection as mercenary design. Later years in Rome, as I understand them, had a trend away from family units, where men of status intentionally avoided heirs to acquire an entourage of aspiring young men looking to gain inheritance. We're referring to dead men with obscure histories in a small region of the world, I don't think informed opinions can be made on this kind of conjecture.

" A man can enjoy sexual pleasure from a male -- and masterbation is the proof. So where does his mental orientation come from? Social conditioning."

In that line of logic, did you stop to ask about the content of one's thoughts when masturbating? I know there are some auto-sexuals out there, but the vast portion of the internet dedicated to porn, kind of suggests that sexual pleasure and preference are usually not met by thinking of nothing but one's own penis as one masturbates.

If you remove the stimulus provided by imagination or porn, all of which will be suited to the observers orientation/fetishes, erection isn't going to happen. What kind of sexual pleasure can a man have without an erection? I'm sure there are gratifying acts that can be done for others, but without the appropriate material, the penis is not responsive to much at all. At that point, I don't think the man in this example is a sexual partner so much as a sexual aid.

I'm curious where you are getting these facts. I don't doubt that "straight" and "gay" are new terms, but the concept behind them (describing preferences) isn't just old in the English language, it's in just about every other language. And as I said earlier, we have a modern usage of words, invoking the history does not change what they mean today to what they meant. You can try to reform language, but it will never work, that's why "D'oh!" is in the dictionary.

As for the production of offspring being difficult...what? On what are you basing that? Do you mean having children survive to old age? Because saying that producing children was difficult is plainly false. Christian families considered it a religious prerogative, no question, but in agrarian societies where labor was very much dependent on having numerous children, you had families with ten and more. There are records and pamphlets from the industrial revolution trying to get people who had moved from the countryside into cities to stop having so many children. Its a very easy thing to do.
 
"The counter argument can be made that sexuality in Greece could have been as much innocent affection as mercenary design."

If you've ever heard of the term "greek sex" you know it means anal sex. Which was accepted as part of the culture. Research the presence of homosexual honoring in art forms.


" A man can enjoy sexual pleasure from a male -- and masterbation is the proof. So where does his mental orientation come from? Social conditioning."

"In that line of logic, did you stop to ask about the content of one's thoughts when masturbating?"

It doesn't matter what the man thinking, physical stimulation is an independent function. It's a massage of tissue, just like a back massage. GO TRY IT. Get an informed experience. I've proven this theory many, many times with "straight" men...

Erections happen without thought, and purely from physical stimulation. Thought is a bonus, but not required.


"I'm curious where you are getting these facts. I don't doubt that "straight" and "gay" are new terms, but the concept behind them (describing preferences) isn't just old in the English language, it's in just about every other language."

Google the history of the words "straight" "gay" "heterosexual" and "homosexual"

Hetero and homo are scientific terms that go way back -- but they never were tied to human desire, only behavior. The difference here, is the the stigma or boundaries attached to "straight" and "gay".

In the past, an act was homosexual but a person was not. Sexuality didn't define the being. The discrimination (and thus social outcast) based on sexual behavior began with the use of the term "strait or straight" and peaked when Hilter chose to round up and put homosexuals in death camps, with jews, gypsys and others. This is where the pink triangle comes from.

Never before was this done.


"As for the production of offspring being difficult...what? On what are you basing that? Do you mean having children survive to old age?"

Child mortality rate, and life expectancy rate in the past. Yes, i mean children (or adults) surviving to "old" age. modern medicine has eliminated the threat of many disease. Im not saying people couldnt have children...Im saying it was the only distinction from homosexuality.

Whereas homosexuality has been feared and despised in the past 80 years for reasons without merit.
 
"If you've ever heard of the term "greek sex" you know it means anal sex. Which was accepted as part of the culture. Research the presence of homosexual honoring in art forms."

Or you just told me that, thank you. When I said that a counter argument could be made, I wasn't vouching for it (though its certainly not original to me), but pointing out that talking about people we can only learn of through translations of dead languages and art millenia old from one society probably isn't the best way to make a solid argument about trends that occurred then or today. It leads to cherry picking.

Ex: Roman and Greek sexuality was based on conquest and the ability to preserve one's body from another person's control, Roman sexuality might have been bi, gay, or straight, but it could have also been rape; rape that shamed the bottom and praised the top. In that society, sexuality wasn't a matter of indifference or preference, but violation. And then I can put on my christian fundie hat and say crazy things about gay people.

We've both said things about Romans that might very well be true and supported by evidence. Confirmation is more than likely going to come from bias. Let's keep the world view in the present.

"It doesn't matter what the man thinking, physical stimulation is an independent function. It's a massage of tissue, just like a back massage. GO TRY IT."

Again, the consumption of porn and fetishes in general does show that outside stimulus or imagination is necessary for arousal. I can touch myself all day long, I am not going to have an erection or orgasm without a suitable partner or material. I know my own penis, there are no secrets in that quarter.

"Erections happen without thought, and purely from physical stimulation. Thought is a bonus, but not required."

When I say thought, its in the context that we are talking about masturbation as a subject you brought up. Arousal needs a subject to be aroused by. As a case against pure physical stimulation being enough, the simplest answer is erectile dysfunction in men with no physical reason resulting from stress and/or simply not being attracted to your partner. There is a psychological factor involved on which all sexual activity is going to depend.

"Hetero and homo are scientific terms that go way back -- but they never were tied to human desire, only behavior."

Yeah, not making any arguments for social stigma. As for it being recent, the bible has some early claims to arguing against homosexuality. Putting the origin of that stigma in the last century on the other hand... England had its first Anti-buggery law in 1533. Assyrians in 1075 BC, the penalty was castration. France dropped its criminalizing ways in 1791. Just saying, I think you're selling homosexual oppression a bit short.

"The difference here, is the the stigma or boundaries attached to "straight" and "gay"."

No fan of stigma, but you really can't deny people a right to privacy and personal boundaries. I don't think we can blame religion for not wanting to be touched by people we don't want to be touched by.
 
"There is a psychological factor involved on which all sexual activity is going to depend."

Perhaps YOU need a psychological factor everytime, but teenage boys and most men who wake from sleep will agree sometimes boners occur without reliance on sexual thought.


"As for it being recent, the bible has some early claims to arguing against homosexuality."

The bible is not historial documentation. It's a collection of religious writings by ancient Israelites. One must question WHY the bible specifically prohibits homosexuality?

Because its rare and uncommon? Or perhaps the opposite, it became common and needed to squashed for the sake of procreation. Do we create a laws against minority behavior, or wait until they begin drift into the mainstream and risk changing the stability of culture?


"No fan of stigma, but you really can't deny people a right to privacy and personal boundaries. I don't think we can blame religion for not wanting to be touched by people we don't want to be touched by."

Yes, people have the right to boundaries, the question is who created the idea to set them? When did intimacy between men (who share similar forms, commonality, and familiar attributes) become distasteful?

Leviticus18:22 of the Old Testament:
‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

This is where religion specifically tells mankind what boundaries to set. Religion is to blame.
 
"Perhaps YOU need a psychological factor everytime, but teenage boys and most men who wake from sleep will agree sometimes boners occur without reliance on sexual thought."

Or perhaps a little touch is all YOU need. :p

There are things called wet dreams, which tend to have some rated R content. Sleep isn't some timeless wasteland of consciousness. Here, an example of men who give no sign of having physical issues, and yet somehow still fall short of the line: eFukt.com | Crushed Dreams Of Porn Stardom

Example number three has received his pre-game fluffer and is balls deep as he goes soft. Presumably from being nervous.

"The bible is not historial documentation. It's a collection of religious writings by ancient Israelites."

I wasn't taking it as literal truth, just pointing out that your "80 years" of homosexual oppression seems to be a bit short. I've seen some records colonial America that were hinted to suggest m/m courting, and while there might not have been Auschwitz, it wasn't open or publicized. Man love might have occurred, but it wasn't open and it wasn't free.

"One must question WHY the bible specifically prohibits homosexuality? Because its rare and uncommon? Or perhaps the opposite, it became common and needed to squashed for the sake of procreation."

Okay, not gonna lie, I'm always wary when people string together a bunch of questions into a conspiracy theory. Are you couching this in bronze age nomads understanding the finer points of social planning? And then those same men demanding gay men sleep with women those straight nomads could be coveting for themselves in magnificent polygamy? Ok. If the more the merrier is the kind of rational you feel describes men best.

My take is a bit different. I saw a study that people who were opposed to being in contact with Gay people reacted that way because they thought homosexuals might come on to them.

Along those lines, straight men with opportunity and power could take steps criminalize homosexuality. Its not unnatural to reject and ostracize potential mates we have zero interest in. We even reject members of the sex we are interested in, boundaries are natural. Animals do it, and we are animals, clearly not quite up to your standard of civilization.

Aesthetics is a personal taste; say someone is physically repellent, I'm sure there will be plenty of people that will find them charming, but for you that guy/girl is all manner of things negative with none of the characteristics you appreciate, does it ever seem like a good idea for them to touch you? Would you want them to touch you? Sexual intimacy between men isn't wrong, sexual intimacy between people who don't appreciate each other is wrong and nearly impossible. Straight men don't discriminate against men because they're just straight, they discriminate against men because the men don't look like women.

Also, its kind of condescending to write off a group of people's choices to be based on one factor a large portion have little to do with.
 
The level of self that is projected in the first blog is is essence. What Is wrong with society. What has been described as sexual repression. Is indeed only an attempt at explaining why our predecessors were in his terms sexually repressed. Keeping on the straight and narrow was not about being forced into getting married. There were many people in the bible who were not married. But led decent honorable lives. The time frames
mentioned, were not the beginning of this so called sexual repression. From the very beginning of society. It was important to bring fresh genes to the pool as it were. A dowry was not paid as a bribe. It was used to help insure that the new bride and groom were able to start out with as little hardships as possible. Now! Moving onwards. There has been for many generations throughout our country. A tendency to menouver away from our responsibilities. Drinking running around with women and paying very little attention to the wife at home or the children that were the ABSOLUTE responsibility of the father of the house. We required our women to behave morally correct. And our children to respect authority, in and out of the house. I'm not going to go on with this for much longer only because this is a subject of many thiesies in many colleges.
The thought that we were wrong for requiring this. Is as ludicrous as saying we are correct for allowing abortions on the basis of convenience. We scream let me do what I want! But what has happened as a consequence is our schools have turned into de-militarized zones. Our children ar less educated. The average high school graduate doesn't even know who George Washington is unles they're talking about G.W.Carver. And I'd venture to say. Many of them wouldn't even know who he was. We have an epidemic of teenage pregnancies. Children who don't know who their father is and a government who has allowed this to continue into a welfare state. Only to further their political goals of keeping us poor stupid and fully reliant on them instead of our true god who has given us life.
Our Constitution states, that we have the right To PERSUIT OF life liberty and happiness.Not the GAURANTEE OF IT
Lets quit bullying the church and start waking up to the fact that we collectively are responsible for this mess we are in as a nation. When we abandoned conservative values we started falling apart. Now I have one last question.
What part are we going to play. In returning the pride and dignity to the great nation.
 

Blog entry information

Author
gloryholesfbay
Read time
2 min read
Views
252
Comments
9
Last update

More entries in General

Share this entry