Serious Questions for the straight guys..

[Opalite]

Chat with some gay men Katt. You'll find we see the form (think Michelangelo's David) of the male body as graceful and beautiful from an aesthetic point of view as hetero men do the female body.

Nonetheless I enjoyed your perspective.

I'm sure most heterosexual men would agree with you.

Oh, but I'm in no way saying the male form in itself isn't amazingly beatifull and sexy (because it is!), but more so that our current society still seems to have these dated views on how we shoúld look at it at that, not nescesarilly sexual even.

Maybe even why Michelangelo's 'David' was as intruiging and nearly shocking in it's time, because of the way we had been told to stand by these new norms of sex and beauty, and how this didn't fit the bill. We might have all allready THOUGHT differently, but actually saying so and displaying such was and is still taboo! For shame, either way! But as long as we can look past that sillyness, sex will be as amazing as it should be. *sigh*



Alcohol tends to make me think I'm smart, excuse me if I went a little overboard :tongue: Eitherway, you're a cutie for reading through the whole thing!

 

[B_Stronzo]

Totally agree Katt. Weird what others attempt to force us to feel about our own sexuality, no? :wink:

Do you know a small town called Bennekom?

 

[Opalite]

Totally agree Katt. Weird what others attempt to force us to feel about our own sexuality, no? :wink:

Do you know a small town called Bennekom?

It does sound familiar, yes.. I could be wrong (geographically I'm a mess, even sober), but that's somewhere near Arnhem, right? Can't say I ever been there though! But you've got me curious now.. Why'd you ask? :tongue:

And couldn't agree more, mister Stronzo! Sex is awesome, some people just don't know what they're missing! Which is okay, 'cause it leaves all the more pretty men for us. :tongue: :biggrin1:

 

[B_willy5904]

This thread is a hoot. I am probably not the best to add to this conversation as I can not give my experience from the Straight Guy perspective. I do not care for labels, but if I have to be labeled I am bi.

To give you an idea where I am coming from, I love sharing the intimacy of sex with a group. I have been having group sex on a regular basis since I was a freshman in college. My wife and I have been sharing our bed with the same small group of couples since we met in our sophomore year in school.

From a porn perspective I do not really get into girl on girl action. I do enjoy watching porn with MFF / MMF or any other combination. I am not sure if it is ego or what, it just gets me hard, where FF does not do it for me.

In real life I love watching my wife have sex with her girlfriends. I love watching them enjoy each other. Conversely, my wife enjoys watching me and my buddies suck and screw each other. If I think about it, the reason I like watching my wife with a women in real life vs FF Porn, is that I know that these ladies in my bed are really enjoying making each other feel great. In FF porn it is just bad acting.

When my wife and I are sharing our bed it tends to be with another couple, rather than just another girl or guy. If we are just having a 3-some my preference is to have MFM or MMF. I find that when we have MFF I just end up getting exhausted as I end up working too hard making sure both women are satisfied.

 

[Opalite]

"..In FF porn it is just bad acting"

I absolutely agree! If you wouldn't know any better, you'd sometimes think it's the first time they have ever come across a pussy at all. :biggrin1:

Seeing two/three/etc. ladies have sex with eachother that are only doing so for a few fast bucks without having to do a scene with a guy could hardly be called 'sexual', if you'd ask me.. (well, about as sexual as watching a guy jerk off as if there were fire ants all over his nuttsack - for me personally; not so sexy)

 

[Drifterwood]

I find that when we have MFF I just end up getting exhausted as I end up working too hard making sure both women are satisfied.

:biggrin1: Lol - just lie there.

Very interesting post. I think MMF or MFM has two complications which you don't experience. You know your partners very well and you are "bi".

One type of MFM is really just cuck, and that doesn't appeal to many men, as the third party as much as the first. If it is not cuck, then you can have problems with the partner of the woman. That guy has o be completely cool about seeing his partner enjoying certain things.

Then of course a lot of men are just competitive. In my experience it is very difficult to get all the criteria right for MFM. I am sure a lot of women would enjoy it very much, but finding two "straight" Ms to sublimate their sexual egos is not easy.

I need to find an M buddy so we can hunt together :biggrin1:.

 

[B_Stronzo]

It does sound familiar, yes.. I could be wrong (geographically I'm a mess, even sober), but that's somewhere near Arnhem, right? Can't say I ever been there though! But you've got me curious now.. Why'd you ask? :tongue:

I ask only Katt since dear friends who now live in Lyon have inlaws who live in that small rural Dutch town. I hear its just lovely but have never been though this Bennekom family has stayed here in the States with us.
I need to visit The Netherlands and really spend some time there. I've never even had a proper trip to Amsterdam!! It's high time.

And couldn't agree more, mister Stronzo! Sex is awesome, some people just don't know what they're missing! Which is okay, 'cause it leaves all the more pretty men for us. :tongue: :biggrin1:

I see sex is the international tongue.. :wink:

 

[Astrate]

All right; again you miss the point of the thread strate.

For the third time I'm getting at the genesis of your so-called 'moral code' and the culprits behind it. That you appear unwilling or unable to address.

I have already said that the rejection of gay sex as normal is a cultural construct. Yes homophobia exists, it's learnt, cultural, pressure to conform etc. Yes there is discrimination which is unacceptable.

But I don't agree with you that this is the main reason for what is put on TV as entertainment.


What you fail to see is that it is very common to have a personal aversion to gay activity, and do not want to watch it on TV, including MMF, but at the same time feel gay sex is perfectly normal. But if I am running a commercial TV production company and my success depends on satisfying popular taste I would show more MFF than MMF, more hetero butt sex than gay butt sex, not to make a point or exert control, but to maximise viewing figures.


I agree that "homophobia" and any machination in society and entertainment that is discriminatory is entirely cultural and fascist. I do not agree that all aversion to gay sex is cultural.

Such a code can find its way to a different society and survive even where it is not adaptive, if that scripture was adopted whole and interpreted literally as a religious construct.

By whom? Mindless bleating sheep?

Precisely! AKA Christians and Muslims (Mohammed adopted a lot of the Old Testament)

My sense is that you're terribly young

Why thank you!

 

[Drifterwood]

I have already said that the rejection of gay sex as normal is a cultural construct.

But I can show you where the acceptance of gay sex IS a normal, construct or otherwise. You are such a retard that you keep repeating your little mantra without providing anything that looks other than the opinion above that of a weirdo.

So, you who are not christian, but belong to the Lpsg christian group and no other, you who are the scion of a strict catholic upbringing, be honest for once, ha fucking ha.

Why do you even need to call yourself strate? With all due respect, you have a fairly normal sized cock, so what is your agenda here? From where I am sat, it isn't that pretty.

 

[B_Stronzo]

What you fail to see is that it is very common to have a personal aversion to gay activity, and do not want to watch it on TV, including MMF, but at the same time feel gay sex is perfectly normal.

Nonsense.

But if I am running a commercial TV production company and my success depends on satisfying popular taste I would show more MFF than MMF, more hetero butt sex than gay butt sex, not to make a point or exert control, but to maximise viewing figures.

You are the embodiment of the very reason I presented this thread topic.

Take it to the next obvious step.. the reason it "[maximises] viewing figures" is because strate power-driven fucktards continue to promote their "our way or the the highway" agenda. Dear sir - my point is that it needs to end.

I need no explanation from you as to why it exists. What I want is the means by which the double standard can end. You provide kindling for a fire which is already burning entirely out of control.

I agree that "homophobia" and any machination in society and entertainment that is discriminatory is entirely cultural and fascist.

It must be simple to write it. Believing it is entirely something else again.

I do not agree that all aversion to gay sex is cultural.

By that same token I know gay men who have an 'aversion' to heterosexual sex. That, Mr. strate, is purely cultural.

Why thank you!

I mean your mentality.

 

[Astrate]

But I can show you where the acceptance of gay sex IS a normal, construct or otherwise. You are such a retard that you keep repeating your little mantra without providing anything that looks other than the opinion above that of a weirdo.

So, you who are not christian, but belong to the Lpsg christian group and no other, you who are the scion of a strict catholic upbringing, be honest for once, ha fucking ha.

Why do you even need to call yourself strate? With all due respect, you have a fairly normal sized cock, so what is your agenda here? From where I am sat, it isn't that pretty.

Wow. So much homework, but 0/10. I am fascinated by religion, the orgins and the needs (or otherwise) for it. I like discussing it with Christians and Muslims, who are stuck in their doctrine.

I also think there is a lot of innate human nature underlying culture, obviously far more than you think.

I have cock issues and interests which drew me to this site; I’m not big for this site but bigger than the average; it could even be I’m 4.83% gay. I have no “agenda”, but clearly you have.

Perhaps you also theorise that we (str8 christian honkies) are evolutionarily disposed to hate Negros, Jews, Muslims, Women, Commies and disabled people.

No. But it's an interesting subject. Hatred against specific groups are obviously all social constructs. But, you may be interested to know (or immediately reject it) that all humans are evolutionary predisposed to categorise others as “ingroup” or “outgroup”. For people who are genetically predisposed to be liberal-minded this is morally weak, whereas for conservative minded people (again a genetic predisposition of a mix of traits) this is morally strong and they are strongly protective of ingroup and intolerant of outgroups. Whom they regard as outgroup is learnt, -socially constructed. This is all evidence based (Haidt. Nettle. Lakoff. Sowell) Now, because of -watch out here comes the “mantra”- the (variable) natural aversion against male homosexual sex amongst hetero males, homosexuals are commonly regarded as an “outgroup”, unless the aversion is desensitised by the culture as I previously explained. I had already quoted some evidence for this from twin studies, that show that around 50% of the variance of attitude to gay sex is non-enviromental, which can only be explained by innate aversion.

This explains why despite the same culture, home enviroment, outside enviroment, there is still a huge variation in degree of aversion to gay sex between men and women, and indeed different men, from the same family, yet much less variation between identical twins raised apart.

The only reason I posted this stuff is that it provides a possible alternate explanation to the OP’s question. There’s no agenda except in your paranoia.

 

[Astrate]

Nonsense.

If you believe that all those who do not like to watch gay sex are homophobic you have a big problem of paranoia.

Take it to the next obvious step.. the reason it "[maximises] viewing figures" is because strate power-driven fucktards continue to promote their "our way or the the highway" agenda. Dear sir - my point is that it needs to end.

I get that and agree

By that same token I know gay men who have an 'aversion' to heterosexual sex. That, Mr. strate, is purely cultural.

I have seen no studies on that specifically so I don't know. Maybe you know of gay men who initially were not averse to heterosex and then became averse, otherwise you are making an assumption.

I mean your mentality.

I know, but I preferred to take it the other way

 

[Drifterwood]

Hatred against specific groups are obviously all social constructs.

Praise the Lord.

But for the rest of your theory (and you don't quote studies, you ask us to believe that one exists from these legendary twins), you would have to a. identify that group, and b. establish that it was their private sexual activity rather than a publicly open activity that causes revulsion.

Do you think that Gareth Thomas is an outgroup member? and that we are all now reviled by him? Gay activists praise rugby star Gareth Thomas's decision to come out | World news | The Observer

Primates are successful because they communicate and cooperate. It is a construct to exclude based on judgmental criteria rather than on behaviour that actually damages the group. You only have to look at what has been achieved by homosexuals to see this. The whole notion of homosexuals as an outgroup is demonstably the construct of the Church in western culture. It has nothing to do with evolution. The real question is why anyone would wish to argue for homosexuals to be an outgroup.

PS - you do realise that homosexual activity isn't a crime anymore?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

OK. Bad example; the instinctive fear is linked to the snake as predator not as food.


Many memes are adaptive at group level, including aversions.


Even the culturally acquired homophobia would be adaptive in certain societies. For example, a in warrior tribe trying to establish itself amongst rival tribes, any meme that encouraged optimum procreation would be adaptive. So if a moral code was established as religious doctrine, enshrined in scripture, that outlawed the “spilling of seed” (contraception) and homosexual activity, this would be rapidly adaptive. Such a code can find its way to a different society and survive even where it is not adaptive, if that scripture was adopted whole and interpreted literally as a religious construct.

In fact, in this day and age the opposite is true. With population outstripping resources, a meme (cultural construct)that entailed the celebration of gay sex worldwide and supported gay relationships would be adaptive

I'm afraid this doesn't really stack up anthropologically speaking. The ancient greeks were by no means the only group of warlike cultures (one of which succeeded in creating one of the greatest empires of all time) who observed that homosexuality was a useful and efficacious way of creating strongly bonded and ferociously loyal fighting forces comprised of males.

A cultural meme which prises heterosexuality and avers homosexuality is no more useful for a warrior society than a meme which prises homosexuality or at least homoeroticism as a useful method of creating strongly bonded male peer groups. Ultimately both approaches have been tried and neither has proven so useful that they ended up supplanting the other completely.


In any case, Bonobo chimps readily engage in homosexual sex acts both in private and in public as part of the grease of their societies, if there exists no innate aversion to homosex in our closest relatives in the animal kingdom who presumably share some inheritance regarding sexuality from our common ancestor with us why would such an innate aversion present itself in us ?

Note that I understand that you are not talking about a genetic aversion, I'm simply making the point that in fact our genetics would suggest the opposite to your hereditised culture theory on this issue.

 

[Astrate]

I'm afraid this doesn't really stack up anthropologically speaking. The ancient greeks were by no means the only group of warlike cultures (one of which succeeded in creating one of the greatest empires of all time) who observed that homosexuality was a useful and efficacious way of creating strongly bonded and ferociously loyal fighting forces comprised of males.

A cultural meme which prises heterosexuality and avers homosexuality is no more useful for a warrior society than a meme which prises homosexuality or at least homoeroticism as a useful method of creating strongly bonded male peer groups. Ultimately both approaches have been tried and neither has proven so useful that they ended up supplanting the other completely.

It does depend on the salient factor(s) in their success. If a tribe was trying to establish itself in a new area and rapid expansion of the population was a salient operant, then cultural exploitative reinforcement of innate aversion to homosexuality would be adaptive. If the salient feature of the tribe is a powerful male warrior class then the innate aversion would be culturally desensitised in that class, and that would be adaptive. Hence innate aversion that is culturally modifiable would be an adaptive balance to the existence of homosexuality.

 

[Drifterwood]

But Gay men have been knocking women up for ever - so?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

It does depend on the salient factor(s) in their success. If a tribe was trying to establish itself in a new area and rapid expansion of the population was a salient operant, then cultural exploitative reinforcement of innate aversion to homosexuality would be adaptive. If the salient feature of the tribe is a powerful male warrior class then the innate aversion would be culturally desensitised in that class, and that would be adaptive. Hence innate aversion that is culturally modifiable would be an adaptive balance to the existence of homosexuality.

Since when has homosexuality or the prevalence of homosex within a society had anything to do with the fertility of that society ?

Homosex and homosexuality were extremely prevalent in ancient Greek societies (just for instance) and yet populations of Greeks not only grew within their homeland but expended to colonise half the mediterranean world. Homosex and homosexuality had no effect on the ability of this society to reproduce just as it seemingly has little to do with population growth in modern societies.

I don't stop producing sperm just because I have sex with men and I don't automatically loose the ability to procreate either.

 

[Astrate]

Praise the Lord.

But for the rest of your theory (and you don't quote studies, you ask us to believe that one exists from these legendary twins), you would have to a. identify that group, and b. establish that it was their private sexual activity rather than a publicly open activity that causes revulsion.

Well of course. If I regard Man United supporters as an outgroup I would have to know who the individual supported before regarding him as an enemy.

OK. Here's a study Genetic and Environmental Influences on Individual Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: An Australian Twin Study

ABSTRACT:
Previous research has shown that many heterosexuals hold negative attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (homophobia). Although a great deal of research has focused on the profile of homophobic individuals, this research provides little theoretical insight into the aetiology of homophobia. To examine genetic and environmental influences on variation in attitudes toward homophobia, we analysed data from 4,688 twins who completed a questionnaire concerning sexual behaviour and attitudes, including attitudes toward homosexuality. Results show that, in accordance with literature, males have significantly more negative attitudes toward homosexuality than females and non-heterosexuals are less homophobic than heterosexuals. In contrast with some earlier findings, age had no significant effect on the homophobia scores in this study. Genetic modelling showed that variation in homophobia scores could be explained by additive genetic (36%), shared environmental (18%) and unique environmental factors (46%). However, corrections based on previous findings show that the shared environmental estimate may be almost entirely accounted for as extra additive genetic variance arising from assortative mating for homophobic attitudes. The results suggest that variation in attitudes toward homosexuality is substantially inherited, and that social environmental influences are relatively minor.

Note the conclusion in this study goes further than the one I quoted, by ascribing most of the shared environment effect (“learning in the family home”) is due to assortative mating, meaning that the source of influence (the parents and other family members) are already similar to the subjects through genes, so that what might look like family based cultural influence already predetermined by genes. So they are saying that the genetic influence in the variance in attitude to homosexuality is 36 + 46 = 82% genetic.

This is not the same study as the ones I quoted previously(which I can’t find it online) but demonstrates the same thing. (The only difference is that this study did not test for aversion to gay sex without negative attitude to gay people, who therefore got included in the group with positive attitude)

Note that it doesn’t mean that there is “a gene” for homophobia, but I have previously explained how it works…..nevertheless:.....

Do you think that Gareth Thomas is an outgroup member? and that we are all now reviled by him? Gay activists praise rugby star Gareth Thomas's decision to come out | World news | The Observer

Primates are successful because they communicate and cooperate. It is a construct to exclude based on judgmental criteria rather than on behaviour that actually damages the group. You only have to look at what has been achieved by homosexuals to see this. The whole notion of homosexuals as an outgroup is demonstably the construct of the Church in western culture. It has nothing to do with evolution. The real question is why anyone would wish to argue for homosexuals to be an outgroup.

PS - you do realise that homosexual activity isn't a crime anymore?

...I'm not sure you got what I said. No individual applies judgemental criteria. He may have been brought up to feel that certain types of people are an outgroup. Once he recognises someone as being of that type he will automatically feel animosity. (particularly if he is innately conservative, and not much if he is innately liberal).

 

[Astrate]

Since when has homosexuality or the prevalence of homosex within a society had anything to do with the fertility of that society ?

OK, here I made the presumption that in a social group with high child death rates every sexual opportunity taken affects procreation rates. At the very least homosexuality is a distraction. If there is no pressure on gay men to marry (a woman) and have children a proportion would not do so.

"Go forth and multiply"

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well of course. If I regard Man United supporters as an outgroup I would have to know who the individual supported before regarding him as an enemy.

OK. Here's a study Genetic and Environmental Influences on Individual Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality: An Australian Twin Study



Note the conclusion in this study goes further than the one I quoted, by ascribing most of the shared environment effect (“learning in the family home”) is due to assortative mating, meaning that the source of influence (the parents and other family members) are already similar to the subjects through genes, so that what might look like family based cultural influence already predetermined by genes. So they are saying that the genetic influence in the variance in attitude to homosexuality is 36 + 46 = 82% genetic.

This is not the same study as the ones I quoted previously(which I can’t find it online) but demonstrates the same thing. (The only difference is that this study did not test for aversion to gay sex without negative attitude to gay people, who therefore got included in the group with positive attitude)

Note that it doesn’t mean that there is “a gene” for homophobia, but I have previously explained how it works…..nevertheless:.....

Essentially all this study proves is that some people in Australia are homophobic and that generally age does not seem to predict if they will be homophobic or not and that heterosexual men men tend to be less favourably disposed to homosexuality than women or homosexuals.

This does not prove that homophobia, or aversion to homosex is innate to humanity. It does show the first of these things to be relatively common to certain demographic groups within a specific country. Unlike actual genetics which could be tested for conclusively this statistical analysis can suggest certain possibilities about a particular test group, and can only hope to offer the vaguest indications regarding wider un-tested groups, it does not prove a hereditary homophobia exists within the human species based upon breeding selectively for certain beliefs and ideas. If this were the case then the discrepancy between men and women being homophobic would make no sense since both would have been born of equally homophobic parents into a presumably equally heritable homophobia. Why would women select mates more likely to be homophobic thn themselves ? Or why would parents only pass on their homophobia intact to their male offspring ?

Again the wild presumptions and logical leaps and lacunae are enormous in this field of study you promote as cast in iron and incontrovertible