Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Thinking more on it.. yeah.

Maybe it's because we're men?

I thought you were merely boys.

Or possibly boyz.

MrDwhitey wrote:Thinking more on it.. yeah.

Maybe it's because we're men?

Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I thought you were merely boys.

Or possibly boyz.

...I'm 42, I haven't been a " boy" in quite some time...hell I'm halfway to dead or senile.

I'm going to put on my Spiderman costume and see if I can find Catwomen or a Vampire Lady. All weekend.

FITZZ wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Thinking more on it.. yeah.

Maybe it's because we're men?

Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.

I didn't mean anything like that FITZZ, I also get pretty annoyed that crap. I can also see where you're coming from with the repression due to fear of moral judgement.

I mainly meant it in a "We're men, how could we hope to understand women eh?" way.

I could live with being called a boy, so long as the plural was the z.

MrDwhitey wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Thinking more on it.. yeah.

Maybe it's because we're men?

Perhaps so, however I've always been very much against the " double standard" that tends to be used against women.
If a man is openly sexual and has a lot of experiance ...well he's a " stud" or at least it's not particularly frowned upon...where as if a woman does the exact same thing she is often labeled "loose" or what have you, which I personally think is absolute BS.
Women should be as free as men to express their sexuality ...with out any crap " moral judgement". being thrown in their faces....just my two cents.

I didn't mean anything like that FITZZ, I also get pretty annoyed that crap. I can also see where you're coming from with the repression due to fear of moral judgement.

I mainly meant it in a "We're men, how could we hope to understand women eh?" way.

Oh...I didn't mean that you yourself held those sorts of belifes Dwhitey...sorry if it came of that way.

...As far as men not " understanding women"...meh..I think both men and women actually understand more about one another than they think they do...while at the same time not knowing gak...if that makes any sense whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Radiation wrote:I'm going to put on my Spiderman costume and see if I can find Catwomen or a Vampire Lady. All weekend.

Yeah...have to admit it...I love Halloween for that reason as well...along with the horror movie marathons.

Radiation wrote:I'm going to put on my Spiderman costume and see if I can find Catwomen or a Vampire Lady. All weekend.

I'm the Joker. The only action I'll be getting is 400 pound Batmen running up to me and screaming "I'M BATMAN!" Then running shuffling off.

I'd dress up as the penguin if I were a young'an. I've been often told I'm pretty much the perfect shape.

I understand ya FITZZ, sort of.

I am a straight male, but due to my manner, most people think I'm homosexual, as I am not afraid of jokingly saying "I was abusive because it called me fat" or something like that. As for my stance on homosexual people, I honestly don't care about it unless he starts hitting on me, after which I have a problem.


I don't care if your humping a man, woman, or goat, as long as the other party is willing and your not trying to involve me in any sort of way.

MrDwhitey wrote:I'd dress up as the penguin if I were a young'an. I've been often told I'm pretty much the perfect shape.

I understand ya FITZZ, sort of.

Meh, Halloween time of the awesome

FEAR marathon.

Watching scary movies.

Having nightmares about ALMA coming out of nowhere and slapping you.

Asherian Command wrote:Me F/F is fine.

I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD

It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.

Amphsix wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Me F/F is fine.

I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD

It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.

Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.

FITZZ wrote:

Amphsix wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Me F/F is fine.

I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD

It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.

Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.

Just don't stray onto anything labelled "bisexual" and you should be fine then :O
M/M/F... or more like... M/F/M.... hmmmm... spitroast.

*didn't say anything*

Amphsix wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Amphsix wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Me F/F is fine.

I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD

It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.

Well of course I enjoy(ed) M/F/F...
But wasn't really against M/M/F....so long as it was understood the M's wouldn't be....engaging with one another.

Just don't stray onto anything labelled "bisexual" and you should be fine then :O
M/M/F... or more like... M/F/M.... hmmmm... spitroast.

*didn't say anything*

Well...I really can't " stray" into much anymore...as I now have a Missus and 2 kids...

Amphsix wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:Me F/F is fine.

I call that logic.
Ask any straight man and he'll tell you he likes seeing two women together. It's obvious no-one would mind a double portion of the opposite sex when they're straight xD

It's the same for girls. I reaaalllyyy don't mind seeing two guys together :V it's adorable.

Not always adorable, same goes for women, it really depends on context and quality of the physique. That being said I don't like guys because they don't interest me, I like girls though and sometimes they like me. I like girls who like me.

Well yeah obviously it depends on the people involved.
I was really just referring the the fact that men really seem to like lesbians a loooot, if you know what I mean :V
Just saying it counts the same for girls, just the other way around, with gay guys.

Delicious stereotypes...

I like guys who like me too haha! Though I am already taken so I recently had to turn this guy down.. I felt bad for him becasue he's really nice ):

I find that talking about sexuality varies person by person and that one's taste in activities varies person by person. I find myself kind of bland actually, but then again I never cared enough to think about other possibilities or methods and when I think about it to this day I still don't care enough about sex because to me it isn't all that important right now. I know that some guys will say that its because I have yet to have sex and I still tell them that I just don't care about it, I would rather have a meaningful relationship versus one concerned with just intercourse. Now that I'm in college its even harder to find a girl I like because sure they look pretty but there's nothing there besides wanting to get into their pants. Most of the girls in my school are there because their daddy has enough money to pay for them to join a sorority and get wasted.

Now back to the topic of discussing sex, I find that people who boast about it as if its some sort of contest rather distasteful. Now if you tell me that you banged some chick it doesn't bother me, but as soon as you start acting like its your biggest accomplishment and start to go into detail I lose interest quickly.

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined

To me, this is as silly as saying that person's preferred color is biologically determined.

I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.

It is somewhat amusing how once one is " taken" ..their "potential partners" seem to increase by at least 50%..
I'll run into women now who...express a great deal of interest...and I'm like " where the hell were you when I was single"...I believe that it's the " forbidden fruit" aspect that attracts some...perhaps.

Cheesecat wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:I think people's preferred gender is biologically determined

To me, this is as silly as saying that person's preferred color is biologically determined.

I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.

A person's tastes are usually tied to genetics. If you have ever heard of someone who has an "addictive personality" its because they have some sort of hard wiring in their brain that predisposes them to becoming addicted to something. This hard wiring is tied into genetics and the amount and types of hormones being released. You can try to modify behaviors by creating associations between pleasure and certain conditions, for example you can create a fetish for a person if you can get them to experience that fetish when they do that thing that adults do when they're alone at home.

For example if I wanted to have a guy fantasize about covering people with chocolate I would have to flash images or videos of people being covered with chocolate when they achieve the end of that thing they are doing. Over time this creates a stimulus-response situation similar to Pavlov's Dog, but much dirtier.

Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.

Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." Insisting that homosexuality is "biological" is just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.

Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." Insisting that homosexuality is "biological" is just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural" and therefore "bad."

I don't know man, I knew I liked girls from a very early age...no one really had to point me in that direction...and my cousin knew she like girls from a very early age ( like 7 or 8) and as this was in the South in the 70's...she clearly had no one pointing her in that direction.

A lot of people who are homosexual or are transsexual are that way because they were born that way, in fact there are a lot of homosexuals who protest based on the fact that its not a choice.

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:I don't see how that's any less silly than people who suggest sexuality is something you choose or is influenced by social pressure, but whatever.

Well, because it's obvious that people's preferences are indeed influenced by social pressure. To use a trivial example, people buy certain brands of clothing because of what other people think of those brands. The way that people view reality is the result of this pressure -- I mean how many electrons have you ever personally seen and yet you believe they exist because a bunch of authoritative people insist that they do exist and everyone you respect thinks they're trustworthy. Why would sexual preference alone of all preferences be totally independent of these kinds of pressures? It's purely a political point. Gay people aren't bad if they aren't "born gay." That's just a silly response to people who insist that being gay is "unnatural."

I still don't think any amount of social pressure would change my sexual orientation, even in societies where gay people are being repressed you think gay people that occur in those types of societies are doing it

to be nonconformist/rebellious or do you think they're doing it because it's what seems natural to them something integral to there being, something that was never chosen?

There are a lot of non-biological aspects to a person that we wouldn't call choice. "Choice" and "born like that" constitute a false dichotomy. It's a political slogan. The evidence is plain: The moment I say that being homosexual is non-biological, everyone here assumes I mean it is some kind of choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:A lot of people who are homosexual or are transsexual are that way because they were born that way, in fact there are a lot of homosexuals who protest based on the fact that its not a choice.

So if there are other homosexual people who said "however I was born, this is who I am" should they not be allowed to protest too? Because they don't think they were "born that way" their preferences are bad and unnatural?

Manchu wrote:There are a lot of non-biological aspects to a person that we wouldn't call choice. "Choice" and "born like that" constitute a false dichotomy. It's a political slogan. The evidence is plain: The moment I say that being homosexual is non-biological, everyone here assumes I mean it is some kind of choice.

The thing is when you look at societies full of homophobic social pressure homosexual people still occur so I wonder how much social pressure actually plays in sexuality especially when it comes to preferred

gender.

No... but what I am saying is that the majority of all this is hard wired into a person. If you take a boy and raise him as a girl because he had an accident when he was a baby that caused great harm to his genitals then that "girl" will probably blow his brains out because that is what happened to this one guy. Any time you have a person who says that they are a woman in a man's body or a man in a woman's body its not a choice that they made, its a psychological belief and that stems from genetics. Perhaps it was a hormone imbalance, perhaps it was something else biological, but it normally is caused by something in a person's biology. Now if a person gets drunk and "experiments" then he really isn't a homosexual is he? Men are less likely than women to be bisexual. Men also have a higher base hematocrit level and more erythropoietin than women. Its all biological somewhere down the line.

Its nature versus nurture and most of the time nature beats nurture. That's basic biology and genetics.

Well, social pressure isn't always easy to trace. Direct relationships are not the only real ones. When we talk about other kinds of sexual attractions we explain them with early age associations. Wasn't it someone in this thread who posted about British men in the 60s liking ladies in gasmasks because as tykes they saw women going around in gasmasks all the time? Again, I don't think homosexual attraction is magically privileged just because there is this political issue going on. Gay people are really selling themselves short with the "born this way" argument. They're saying, listen we're not bad because this is all biological. Well, what if some evidence shows up that definitively proves that it's not biological at all? Do we then say, well, gay people really are unnatural and therefore bad? No, of course not. What's tolerable in society has nothing to do with mere biology.

We did't tolerate homosexuality for the most part and we saw it as unnatural and said that it was a choice for them to be homosexual so that they should change the way they are instead of being homosexual. The result was a lot of unhappy people who either led miserable lives or killed themselves.

The thing is, there is a lot of new evidence suggesting that it is genetic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth.

A host of studies since the mid-1990s have found common biological traits between gay men, including left-handedness and the direction of hair whorls. The likelihood that if one identical twin is gay, the other will be also be gay is much higher than the "concordance" of homosexuality between fraternal twins, indicating that genes play a role in sexual orientation, but are not the entire cause.

What scientists call "the fraternal birth order effect", the fact that each successive boy born to the same mother has a greater chance of being gay, may be due to an increasing immunological response by a mother's body to each male foetus in her womb.

halonachos wrote:We did't tolerate homosexuality for the most part and we saw it as unnatural and said that it was a choice for them to be homosexual so that they should change the way they are instead of being homosexual. The result was a lot of unhappy people who either led miserable lives or killed themselves.

So is the answer is to keep the old mentality that natural/biological = good? No, it is not.