# Prison Rape



## Singularity (Sep 22, 2009)

Seymour said:


> Do you think there's any such thing as sexual orientation, separate from sexual acts? Were you gay, straight or bi when you were a virgin? If none of the above, if you abstain from sex for a while, do you revert to that undefined state?
> 
> What about a man attracted to other men, but who marries because of pressure from his family and religion. He's only ever had sex with women, but has to fantasize about men in order to have sex with his wife. Is he really straight? By your definition he's 100% straight. So you'd identify 100% with that man in that situation, and what goes on your head doesn't matter a bit to you personally?
> 
> What about a gay man who has sex with a woman once? Is he straight for life? Bi for life? Straight until he has sex with a man again?



Exactly. The idea that 'an act' _alone_ defines your orientation is...outdated in my opinion. I understand that homosexuality is still hotly debated and so there there are still many people that cling to this definition.


----------



## Spooky (Oct 30, 2008)

Seymour said:


> Okay, I've been restraining myself from this discussion, but I'll take a stab at it.
> 
> Do you think there's any such thing as sexual orientation, separate from sexual acts? Were you gay, straight or bi when you were a virgin? If none of the above, if you abstain from sex for a while, do you revert to that undefined state?
> 
> ...


Most of these questions have already been answered in the thread. If people aren't going to bother reading all of my posts then I'm going to stop replying.

The Batman quote was a joke. It was out of context and doesn't really apply to this debate. I even included a quote from The Office and a smiley face at the end to clear up any confusion.

If anyone actually read Webster's definition of homosexual that I already posted, it lists the following:



> Main Entry: 1ho·mo·sex·u·al
> Pronunciation: \ˌhō-mə-ˈsek-sh(ə-)wəl, -ˈsek-shəl\
> Function: adjective
> Date: 1892
> ...


I interpret this to mean two things: 

*(1)* Anyone who sexually desires a person of the same gender, regardless of whether or not they act upon those desires, is gay.

*(2)* Anyone who engages sexually with members of the same gender, whether they "desire" them or not, is gay. Obviously, if they are willing to have sex then they desire them in some manner.

The first definition addresses sexual desire. The second definition addresses the act itself. It doesn't say that a person has to meet both of these criteria to be a homosexual. If they meet one of them, according to the dictionary, they are gay.

Furthermore, we've discusses the possibility that people's orientations change. I've known people who were once straight and are now gay, not bisexual. I don't consider them heterosexual or bisexual. I consider them homosexual and so do they.


----------



## Seymour (Oct 19, 2009)

No, I really read through the entire thread and I still don't know how you would answer those questions and whether those answers would add up to a coherent picture for me. Maybe I'm just obtuse and can't see how it all fits together in your mind.

I find your use of a dictionary definition as a final arbiter of all meaning to be a little disingenuous. Especially since meaning 1 could easily have more to do with identity, and meaning 2 could easily have more to do with describing acts (not claiming it does, but just that it could be argued). I hardly see where the dictionary definition says "meanings 1 & 2 absolutely define identity for all people who engage in any act that falls under those definitions." Also note than when multiple definitions are given in a dictionary, they are given in order of the most common meaning. 

So, it is most common when we use the term homosexual that we mean meaning 1. You are arguing that it always means both 1 & 2 in every situation. I don't see where that's coming from.

Finally, I think it possible, though not common, that orientation can change. I think it much more common that people come to terms with their already existing orientation by degrees. I think woman are somewhat more flexible than men in regards to orientation, but not being a woman I'm no expert on the matter.


----------



## Spooky (Oct 30, 2008)

Seymour said:


> So, it is most common when we use the term homosexual that we mean meaning 1. You are arguing that it always means both 1 & 2 in every situation. I don't see where that's coming from.


I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I never said someone has to meet both of those definitions to be considered gay. I said if they meet either one of those conditions then they are gay.



Seymour said:


> Finally, I think it possible, though not common, that orientation can change. I think it much more common that people come to terms with their already existing orientation by degrees. I think woman are somewhat more flexible than men in regards to orientation, but not being a woman I'm no expert on the matter.


I agree with that. Although, I don't think it makes women any less bisexual because they are more comfortable expressing their sexuality with other women. I just think a lot of women are bi-curious. There definitely is a double-standard when it comes to sexual conduct between members of the same gender. Two girls can make out and still be considered heterosexual, while two guys making out will most likely be considered gay.


----------



## Harley (Jul 5, 2009)

Well after only reading 2 pages of this thread and skimming the rest, everyone seems to be arguing over a subjective idea of the _connotations_ associated with two guys doing hanky panky. But the actual physical act with no societal, cultural, or personal meaning attached to it whatsoever is gay. When a man puts his penis in another guy's anus it is a homosexual act. Just the _act_ itself is homosexual, and any subjective quality attached to that (intent, orientation, meanings any kind etc...) is completely up to the individual.

If I had sex with a another woman, I am engaging in a homosexual activity. Now as whether or not my intentions or orientation match up with the sexual act is separate from the activity and can have many diff. meanings. But the act is still gay.


----------



## Seymour (Oct 19, 2009)

Tiberius said:


> I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. I never said someone has to meet both of those definitions to be considered gay. I said if they meet either one of those conditions then they are gay.


You are saying that when either definition is true, the person's identity is gay (you say "they are gay"). I would argue that when definition 2 applies, they have engaged in homosexual acts ("they had gay sex"). Plus, I wouldn't say it's a binary choice. I could imagine a mostly straight women being attracted to another woman as an exception. I hardly think that makes her gay for life. She may have "had homosexual feelings" for another woman, but that doesn't make her "a homosexual."



> I agree with that. Although, I don't think it makes many women any less bisexual because they are more comfortable expressing their sexuality with other women. I just think a lot of women are bi-curious. There definitely is a double-standard when it comes to sexual conduct between members of the same gender. Two girls can make out and still be considered heterosexual, while two guys making out will most likely be considered gay.


I agree with what you say there. I think that the high social cost for men reduces the chance that men who are at least a little bisexual will act on any homosexual urges. I've heard it argued that it is fundamentally a matter that woman are (unfairly) assigned lower social status in our culture, so a man who is "feminizing" himself (not my terms, just repeating) by acting gay suffers a greater status loss. Note that a woman who dresses like a man isn't nearly as noteworthy as a man who dresses like a woman. I'm not sure I fully buy it, but it is an interesting argument.

Thanks for your response above. That did help me understand what you were getting at.


----------



## Saruh (Nov 2, 2009)

SUPERJERKASS said:


> im going to have to say that shit is gay if i were to prove i were a dominate man i would just stick with kicking the shit out of a man or if anal is truly way to man deepest fear i sure as hell would not use my penis maybe a plunger handle of or i dont know fucking anything else just not my penis cause ... that shit is gay.





lmao:laughing:


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

Tiberius said:


> We had an interesting discussion tonight at work about prison rape. I think it's gay if you willingly have sex with another person of the same gender, regardless of the circumstances. But a few other people argued that it's not about sexuality, it's about dominance. That may be true.....but....it's still gay!
> 
> Sure, many of these guys are serving life sentences and will never see another woman in their life. If given the option, many of them would probably choose a woman over a man, but under the circumstances they settle for dudes. It's still gay.
> 
> ...


If a stronger male wanted to show dominance over a weaker male he could just punch him out, give him noogies or take his prison jello desert.

Sticking his cock in his ass is the wrong way to do it

However, if he is big and gay then maybe it is a killing multiple birds with one stone strategy. He could give him noogies, while eating his jello as he rapes him and then donkey punch him at orgasm

And if he is tender and reaches around during the anal pounding, maybe he finds himself a soulmate to share the lonely prison nights with...... which makes it a whole flock of birds with one stone( or cock in the ass)

And yes it is gay

Very very gay


----------



## ape (Aug 11, 2009)

Free Will said:


> If you tell a lie.. does that make you an habitual liar?? or just someone who told a lie??
> 
> It's a fine line.. Sir..


So by that logic if Jack Rapid only sucked one cock (as he confessed in a private PM to me) that means he is not a cock sucker?

Well then I take it back Jack, you are not a cock sucker

BTW

Please quit PMing me with your creepy drunken confessions, it ain't cool


----------



## Mercer (Nov 6, 2009)

Spooky said:


> We had an interesting discussion tonight at work about prison rape. I think it's gay if you willingly have sex with another person of the same gender, regardless of the circumstances. But a few other people argued that it's not about sexuality, it's about dominance. That may be true.....but....it's still gay!
> 
> Sure, many of these guys are serving life sentences and will never see another woman in their life. If given the option, many of them would probably choose a woman over a man, but under the circumstances they settle for dudes. It's still gay.
> 
> ...


yeah its gay.


----------



## Pied Tubist (Nov 10, 2009)

There are many ways to hurt and humiliate another man without having sex with him, so I'm not buying it's a purely non-sexual desire. 

I've heard it said that nobody is 100% gay or 100% straight, but rather sexual desire falls along a continuum with bisexuals falling somewhere close to 50-50 in their desires. Iif you have a desire to have sex with another man that is so strong that you act upon it then you are definitely at least somewhat bisexual or homosexual in your sexual orientation.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Jack Rabid said:


> Power can give men erections.. at least I have heard it can..


A friend of mine told me that he got an erection the first time he drove an M1 Abrams tank. I wonder where that puts him on the straight/gay spectrum? Anyone care to speculate?


----------



## Spooky (Oct 30, 2008)

EmotionallyTonedGeometry said:


> A friend of mine told me that he got an erection the first time he drove an M1 Abrams tank. I wonder where that puts him on the straight/gay spectrum? Anyone care to speculate?


They're called _objectum sexuals_. Objectum-Sexuality Internationale - Homepage for Objectum-Sexuals & Objectum Sexuality info with Objectum sexual history


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

You can get an erection without being sexually aroused.


----------



## Just_Some_Guy (Oct 8, 2009)

Spooky said:


> They're called _objectum sexuals_. Objectum-Sexuality Internationale - Homepage for Objectum-Sexuals & Objectum Sexuality info with Objectum sexual history


 I'm aware of the phenomenon, but I don't think that was his case. As he explained it, it was the feeling of overwhelming power that came from driving 64 ton's of one of the most destructive vehicles on the planet. For an 18 year old, its a pretty big deal to be in control of something so archetypally powerful. 

As others have mentioned, I think that power is oftentimes sexual in and of itself. In the case of rape as a means of establishing dominance and power, I see the sexuality of the person you are dominating to be merely incidental, thus having little or nothing to do with the dominator's sexuality. I think it would be important to also look into the emotional bond between the rapist and rapee. Is the sex an expression of intimacy in the sense that the rapist cherishes the individual? I think that if we are to call someone "gay" then there would be this natural attraction to bond emotionally with someone through sexuality. In the case of rape, by definition, this isn’t the case. To classify a same-sex, loving couple who have committed their lives to each other in the same category with a person who uses sex exclusively as a tool of violence and a means of domination and self empowerment seems to be wrong-headed on many levels. 

I think the only way to get to the bottom of this is to actually perform full psychological evaluations of every prison rapist. Then and only then can we get past our agenda-driven, idle speculations.


----------



## Lilsnowy (Sep 9, 2009)

Maybe it's latent homosexuality, but probably more about dominance. How selfish and arrogant and evil can a man be to rape a man just because he can, because he doesn't have a woman?! Any sexual contact is illegal in prison. I think men who rape other men should be put in the hole (isolation) for the rest of their prison sentence. They should never be allowed to interact with other prisoners ever again. 

A man raping a woman affects her sexuality, sometimes for the rest pf her life. For a man to be raped by a man, I can't imagine, when you're already in prison, dealing with extreme issues of worthlessness already, to be tortured and humiliated to that extent. I'm sick thinking about it. No man deserves to be raped as part of his sentence.


----------

