# More Homosexual Men Today



## gurlcorporate (Aug 30, 2012)

Before I say anything else, I want to make clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. I actually think it's great that you're so honest with yourselves especially with something that people can so harshly judge. My question is why are more and men turning to the same sex? Or is it just out of curiousity?

I'm sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

Because its getting some momentuem in wide spread support in some places?

I dont know, theres always been homosexuals and people of a many differing sexaulities and kinks. But perhaps censorship and lack of discussion biases to the mind to making people of the past some how more "pure" humans than our selves who didnt do all the stuff we do sexually today. Theres still a prevalent suicide risk to teens who are homosexual.
But I would just summarise its because the people of that sexual orientation are more vocal now. Wasn't a gay rights movements a century ago I wouldnt think, certainly not at the scale it is today anyway.


----------



## StElmosDream (May 26, 2012)

Social freedoms and less stigma, when noting marriage rights and times of change (maybe trendy to be bi-curious more now or 'anti-establishment' approved?)?


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

Also, the Internet as a means of finding fellow homosexual men. (Not gay myself.)

I don't think the percentage of men with homosexual feelings somewhere inside them actually has changed.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

Because it's less hated now... that's not the right word, but it's more socially acceptable. It's not that there is more, it's that they are more open.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

It's acceptable to be gay now, so they are more visible. Also if you believe that homosexuality is about nuture and not nature, the conditions which bring it about are more prevalent. _Much_ more prevalent.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> My question is why are more and men turning to the same sex?


Yeah that's not how gay works :/

There are probably more gay men because it's becoming more acceptable so they're coming out of the closet in greater numbers.


----------



## wisdom (Dec 31, 2008)

It's possible that due to better nutrition, libidos now run higher in some parts of the world and that makes it tougher for some homosexuals to stay in the closet. However, I know that in the United States and probably some other first-world countries, testosterone levels have declined over the past 50 years or so, which I suppose would eliminate the horniness explanation in those places.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Shinji Mimura said:


> Yeah that's not how gay works :/


 No-o, that's debatable.


----------



## sleepyhead (Nov 14, 2011)

Depends on how you define "homosexual". I doubt the numbers are any higher today when it comes to men who truly feel they are attracted to men (I kept it strictly to men because that's what the OP asked). But the number of men who feel safe enough to come out and be open about it have definitely risen. As has always been the case, I'm sure there's still many men who feel like they may be gay, but never voice or explore those feelings for various reasons (stigma, religion, family, personal views, etc).


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

People don't 'turn' to the same sex, you're born with the attraction. It's just often not realised until later years because we're all under the impression as children that we can only be attracted to the same sex.

But as everyone else has mentioned, yeah, people just don't hide it as much anymore.


----------



## Lesley Drakken (Aug 17, 2012)

Mmm, more like more Homosexuals who aren't afraid they'll get lynched by coming out of the closet.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Greek and Roman cultures had equivalent numbers of homosexuals as it was much more accepted. The world just went thru a long period of anti-gay that it is just starting to come out of. Homosexuality has been around as long as there have been humans. It's normal.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, that's debatable.


No.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Lesley Drakken said:


> Mmm, more like more Homosexuals who aren't afraid they'll get lynched by coming out of the closet.


this


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I've always found it interesting how women are generally more supportive of gay males than men. the way I see it
more gay men = 
- less competition for men
- less potential mates for women

you'd think greater amounts of homosexuality would be an advantage to men and a disadvantage to women


----------



## 39471 (Jun 15, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> Before I say anything else, I want to make clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. I actually think it's great that you're so honest with yourselves especially with something that people can so harshly judge. My question is why are more and men turning to the same sex? Or is it just out of curiousity?
> 
> I'm sorry if I offended anyone.


Not be challenge the status quo, but there are still people out there who believe that turning to the same sex is a result of inadequate male friendship and camaraderie in childhood. This can cause at least many bisexual and "primarily heterosexual" men to turn towards the same sex for mutual male affirmation.

On the other hand, there were plenty of men in previous centuries who turned towards men, but societies were more conservative in many centuries, too. Am I to believe that people just magically started turning towards men because of sexual liberation? Why were religious and cultural attitudes able to "keep" men from expressing their homosexual interests more effectively? Why weren't there sufficient numbers of men turning towards men to produce sexual liberation?


----------



## gurlcorporate (Aug 30, 2012)

wisdom said:


> I don't think the percentage of men with homosexual feelings somewhere inside them actually has changed.


What do you mean?



Diphenhydramine said:


> It's acceptable to be gay now, so they are more visible. Also if you believe that homosexuality is about nuture and not nature, the conditions which bring it about are more prevalent. _Much_ more prevalent.


nature vs. nurture... that's a whole different topic :shocked:



Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, that's debatable.


Exactly! :crazy:



sleepyhead said:


> Depends on how you define "homosexual". I doubt the numbers are any higher today when it comes to men who truly feel they are attracted to men (I kept it strictly to men because that's what the OP asked). But the number of men who feel safe enough to come out and be open about it have definitely risen. As has always been the case, I'm sure there's still many men who feel like they may be gay, but never voice or explore those feelings for various reasons (stigma, religion, family, personal views, etc).


My boss says (though im not claiming her to be a reliable source but who knows)... most men will be homosexual by 2016. and this scares me. 



Khys said:


> Greek and Roman cultures had equivalent numbers of homosexuals as it was much more accepted. The world just went thru a long period of anti-gay that it is just starting to come out of. Homosexuality has been around as long as there have been humans. It's normal.


good point! roud:


----------



## 39471 (Jun 15, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> My boss says (though im not claiming her to be a reliable source but who knows)... most men will be homosexual by 2016. and this scares me.


If environmental/social influences cause more homosexual men, then her theory may be possible. Otherwise, it's impossible.
Or is it that environmental/social influences cause men to explore their homosexual side more freely, so that *most* men find themselves able to explore it?

But if all causes are genetic and prenatal, then the only way for such an increase is if there is some genetic trend of some kind.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Shinji Mimura said:


> No.


 Yes.

There are conditions more likely to bring about homosexual preferences.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Khys said:


> I believe that the tendency to identify yourself by your sexuality has developed due to the oppression of same-sex attraction


I basically agree.


Khys said:


> That does not disprove exclusive same-sex attraction in my mind. It's simply a defensive mechanism to attempt to be accepted. No they may not have had to identify themselves as gay in the Greek culture, but that does not disprove it's existence.


It doesn't disprove it, it's technically possible that maybe modern ideas about homosexual identity existed then and everyone just happened to forget to record any of those ideas until fairly recently. Assuming "this hasn't been proven wrong, therefore its true" isn't really how history works though.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Environmental influences that have shown to lead to homosexual tendencies:
> 1. Disconnection to father figure (in males). "Bad father figures," alcoholics, abuse or violent men, even distrustworthy or uncaring fathers that push children to connect disproportionately to their mother. This leads children (we're speaking from an extremely early age here) to develop unconsciously a path away from what t_hey have seen_ as the masculine identity. If father figure is violent towards mother figure, child develops a skewed view on what 'ordinary' relations between the sexes are.
> 
> Father figure does not need to be abusive, however. What's important is lack of an emotional connection between male child and father.
> ...


My dad is an extremely caring person and I was never sexually abused. My parents have also been married for 27 years.

Does it count if the father figure is present and very much active in the child's life, but somewhat emotionally cut-off? He was taught by his father to repress his emotions because he thought they were wrong and not masculine things to have. I was a very emotional child and couldn't talk about my frustrations with him.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Environmental influences that have shown to lead to homosexual tendencies:
> 1. Disconnection to father figure (in males). "Bad father figures," alcoholics, abuse or violent men, even distrustworthy or uncaring fathers that push children to connect disproportionately to their mother. This leads children (we're speaking from an extremely early age here) to develop unconsciously a path away from what t_hey have seen_ as the masculine identity. If father figure is violent towards mother figure, child develops a skewed view on what 'ordinary' relations between the sexes are.
> 
> Father figure does not need to be abusive, however. What's important is lack of an emotional connection between male child and father.
> ...


I had no male influences growing up and I'm pretty damn sure I've got no inclinations to start fucking men.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

Shahada said:


> I completely agree.It doesn't disprove it, it's technically possible that maybe modern ideas about homosexual identity existed then and everyone just happened to forget to record any of those ideas until fairly recently. Assuming "this hasn't been proven wrong, therefore its true" isn't really how history works though.


I think you're still not hearing me. You keep repeating the phrase "modern ideas about sexuality" when I'm agreeing that"modern sexual identity" didn't exist as it does now. What I'm arguing for is the existence of exclusive same-sex attraction and that you can have one without the other. If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing that you cannot have one without the other.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Kito said:


> My dad is an extremely caring person and I was never sexually abused. My parents have also been married for 27 years.
> 
> Does it count if the father figure is present and very much active in the child's life, but somewhat emotionally cut-off? He was taught by his father to repress his emotions because he thought they were wrong and not masculine things to have. I was a very emotional child and couldn't talk about my frustrations with him.


 From what I have read the important part is that there is an emotional disconnect between son and father


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you'd think greater amounts of homosexuality would be an advantage to men and a disadvantage to women


I agree with this but I doubt that people will be seeing it that way for at least another couple of generations. 

I think current society's developed to make it less favourable for men to support homosexuality as opposed to women out of a fear of consequences of supporting gay males. Typically most societies are largely homophobic where even a male supporter becomes a victim of violent hate crimes - which is something I've observed happen less with females. 

And of course, there's also the possibility that most men withdraw support even if they want to out of fear that their gay friend might fall in love with his straight male supporter - which I wonder might fall under a different kind of homophobia.


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

It's actually quite ludicrous that we as a society define sexual male prowess only as it relates to seducing females. Male sexuality being threatened by the possibility of seducing a male is as ridiculous as the idea of gays getting married threatening my marriage to my husband. 

Oh but i guess I'm just a modern liberal. What do i know.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Khys said:


> I think you're still not hearing me. You keep repeating the phrase "modern ideas about sexuality" when I'm agreeing that"modern sexual identity" didn't exist as it does now. What I'm arguing for is the existence of exclusive same-sex attraction and that you can have one without the other. If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to be arguing that you cannot have one without the other.


No you misunderstand me, I'm sure there's people throughout history who have preferred exclusively one sex or another, including the same sex. I'm just saying these people weren't really thought of as "homosexuals" and they didn't think of themselves that way--I'm speaking solely about the conception of the homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual identity. I do believe people have natural (in the sense that they're not intentionally decided upon) preferences and that this hasn't changed much over history, sorry if I wasn't clear.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Jennywocky said:


> Women are typically thinking more about the person's feelings, men are taking a different view (there's more chance of their own identity feeling threatened or feeling some level of disgust for "feminized" males or whatever else triggers the abuse that is predominately levied against male gays by other men).


I actually disagree with the notion that most women are okay with or are more tolerant towards gay men or men that don't strictly identify with the idea of being straight in sexual orientation. I know a lot of women who won't date men who are bisexual or admit that they may be attracted to men because they find that disgusting and are uneasy with their man potentially liking men. They would rather date a man who is exclusively straight and heterosexual over dating a man who has stated that he may have liked other men. I find that to be odd, and also to be kind of limiting as a person who identifies with bisexuality/pansexuality/omnisexuality.


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

Arrow said:


> They would rather date a man who is exclusively straight and heterosexual over dating a man who has stated that he may have liked other men. I find that to be odd, and also to be kind of limiting as a person who identifies with bisexuality/pansexuality/omnisexuality.


It's because it effectively "doubles" the amount of potential partners.

It would make sense to be averse to this from a societal as well as sociological angle.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Adasta said:


> It's because it effectively "doubles" the amount of potential partners.
> 
> It would make sense to be averse to this from a societal as well as sociological angle.


I don't really understand this. Men wouldn't decline a date with a woman if she had experiences with other women or slept with a woman at some point in time. At least from my anecdotal experience, they actually end up wanting to have a threesome and it becomes sexual invigorating for their partners. It definitely doesn't seem to _deter_ said interest, sexual or otherwise. I think it's only a problem if the man isn't 100% heterosexual, if a woman isn't 100% heterosexual it usually isn't seen as a problem by the man. Women being bisexual isn't really seen to be a hindrance by the general public.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Arrow said:


> I don't really understand this. Men wouldn't decline a date with a woman if she had experiences with other women or slept with a woman at some point in time. At least from my anecdotal experience, they actually end up wanting to have a threesome and it becomes sexual invigorating for their partners. It definitely doesn't seem to _deter_ said interest, sexual or otherwise. I think it's only a problem if the man isn't 100% heterosexual, if a woman isn't 100% heterosexual it usually isn't seen as a problem by the man. Women being bisexual isn't really seen to be a hindrance by the general public.


If she makes a point to tell me her sexual history before we even went out on a date, then I wouldn't take her seriously. I've got too much experience with that to know it's nothing short of a ruse.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> Environmental influences that have shown to lead to homosexual tendencies:
> 1. Disconnection to father figure (in males). "Bad father figures," alcoholics, abuse or violent men, even distrustworthy or uncaring fathers that push children to connect disproportionately to their mother. This leads children (we're speaking from an extremely early age here) to develop unconsciously a path away from what t_hey have seen_ as the masculine identity. If father figure is violent towards mother figure, child develops a skewed view on what 'ordinary' relations between the sexes are.
> 
> Father figure does not need to be abusive, however. What's important is lack of an emotional connection between male child and father.
> ...



If this theory could be proven, which people have been trying to do for years and years to do(like Focus on the Family)then there would be the same environmental factors at play in EVERY SINGLE LGBT persons life and family. There are not. Study after study have proven this theory to be wrong. This theory is considered by modern medicine/Psychiatry to be very outdated at best and bad science at worst. 

I would have to assume that you are aware that there are many, many LGBT people that have been very close to the appropriate parent, have good and stable relationships with their parents, have families with no abuse of substances, no history of child abuse, and also have parents that have been married for years. There is no correlating factor that determines who will be gay or who will not. There is no family configuration that can shown to porduce homosexuals. Then there is the fact that children being raised in same sex households, who have no oposite parent to 'model' behaviors after and still manage to turn out straight. This fact alone shows that being gay or not is NOT because of parenting, or family dynamics, or anything of the sort. 

The newer theories seem to explain to some degree how being gay happens. These state that there are two hormonal washes that happen to a child before birth. The first wash sexualizes the gentials, male or female. However, the second wash sexualizes the brain. So, you can be born female and still have a more male sexualized brain that causes you to be attracted to females or vice versa. In the case of TG, the brains and body are completely sexualized opposite. There also is a correlation between a male having older male siblings to his propensity of turning out gay. This in and of itself lends credance to the hormonal wash theory. 


I realize that those of you who are straight could never, and would never understand fully and completely why we closet ourselves, or how we have seemingly straight relationships, or how we would not know we are gay. This is simply a case of strong societal influences that assume every child will trun out as heterosexual, and at heart, we are all pack animals. Therefore, we attempt to fit into what we determine as the 'norm'. Heterosexuality being this currently, would predispose any and all children to assume they are straight and encourage them to hide from not only others, but from themselves.


----------



## Adasta (Nov 22, 2011)

Arrow said:


> I don't really understand this. Men wouldn't decline a date with a woman if she had experiences with other women or slept with a woman at some point in time. At least from my anecdotal experience, they actually end up wanting to have a threesome and it becomes sexual invigorating for their partners. It definitely doesn't seem to _deter_ said interest, sexual or otherwise. I think it's only a problem if the man isn't 100% heterosexual, if a woman isn't 100% heterosexual it usually isn't seen as a problem by the man. Women being bisexual isn't really seen to be a hindrance by the general public.


I'm talking on a biological level, not a conscious cognitive one.

If you were female, and were going to select a mate that would ensure the survival of your offspring, would you choose one with fewer or more potential mates? Assuming that your potential mate was desirable enough to warrant the passing on of his genetic code, you would clearly choose the one with fewer potential mates. It offers less risk, since that partner would be more likely to stick around to ensure the security of the female and her offspring, should she have any.

Now before people come along and say "That's rubbish; we're far more advanced than all that caveman stuff", I heartily suggest you go and read up on pheromones and non-verbal communication in a bid to understand how dominated we all are by such unconscious elements. These are the factors at play when a woman raises doubt about dating someone with a "fluid" sexual history.

Your suggestion that some people might want threesomes is not conclusive enough to deter the counterargument. You are focusing on a minority, extrapolating the results and applying them to the wider populace. This is a fallacy (Biased Sample). There is no doubt that these people do exist, but their existence does not negate or lessen the prevalence of those that are not like them.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Shahada said:


> ...But you just said a lot of those people are actually homosexuals who spent much of their lives in the closet. Which one is it?


Simple.

If you spent your entire life attracted to your own gender, and never to the opposite sex, you are a homosexual.

If you have ever enjoyed and been attracted to the opposite sex, even once, and have since only been attracted to the same sex, you're a bisexual, albeit a rather bad one.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

killerB said:


> If this theory could be proven, which people have been trying to do for years and years to do(like Focus on the Family)then there would be the same environmental factors at play in EVERY SINGLE LGBT persons life and family. There are not. Study after study have proven this theory to be wrong. This theory is considered by modern medicine/Psychiatry to be very outdated at best and bad science at worst.
> 
> I would have to assume that you are aware that there are many, many LGBT people that have been very close to the appropriate parent, have good and stable relationships with their parents, have families with no abuse of substances, no history of child abuse, and also have parents that have been married for years. There is no correlating factor that determines who will be gay or who will not. There is no family configuration that can shown to porduce homosexuals. Then there is the fact that children being raised in same sex households, who have no oposite parent to 'model' behaviors after and still manage to turn out straight. This fact alone shows that being gay or not is NOT because of parenting, or family dynamics, or anything of the sort.


 That's simply not true. There are studies being released even in our era that show environmental influence on sexuality. There is nobody who seriously claims that there are only environmental factors, that's correct. Modern medical science does not know but suggests there are a wide range of factors that contribute to sexuality, environmental conditions being one of them. It's just absolutely not true that all these conditions have to be observable in homosexuals for it to be the case that they can influence someone's sexuality. I don't know why you think that -- it's just contrary to the truth. It's absurd to suggest the development of someone's character, let alone their sexuality, is determined from a single source. That's an agenda-position. 



killerB said:


> The newer theories seem to explain to some degree how being gay happens. These state that there are two hormonal washes that happen to a child before birth. The first wash sexualizes the gentials, male or female. However, the second wash sexualizes the brain. So, you can be born female and still have a more male sexualized brain that causes you to be attracted to females or vice versa. In the case of TG, the brains and body are completely sexualized opposite. There also is a correlation between a male having older male siblings to his propensity of turning out gay. This in and of itself lends credance to the hormonal wash theory.


 Yeah, how measurable is this? Are we going to go ahead and say we can measure the hormonal washes of every person? is that possible? If so, what's the technique for doing so? Of course, I'm not disputing the hormonal theory. I expect it is true _in some cases._

I mean, yeah, great. You've got a theory. Except it doesn't explain what happens to people who's ought to be gay but aren't. The 'holistic theory' that says we have a number of factors at play is the safest option to believe in since if an observed homosexual lacks one factor the whole theory doesn't fail.



killerB said:


> I realize that those of you who are straight could never, and would never understand fully and completely why we closet ourselves, or how we have seemingly straight relationships, or how we would not know we are gay. This is simply a case of strong societal influences that assume every child will trun out as heterosexual, and at heart, we are all pack animals. Therefore, we attempt to fit into what we determine as the 'norm'. Heterosexuality being this currently, would predispose any and all children to assume they are straight and encourage them to hide from not only others, but from themselves.


 Great, so you're commenting on my sexuality now. Are there any other facets of my character you'd care to assassinate while you're at it?

I'd like to make it clear I don't give a fuck about the vagaries of people's personal lives, what sexual organ they prefer, what religion they pray to or what language they speak at home, whether they're black white yellow or all three. I expect that _when everyone is legally equal_ that this nonsense about defining yourself by unimportant personal characteristics should stop. It's dangerous and counter-productive. People who create divides in society by making these issues important are subversives, whether they're religious fundamentalists, neo-nazis, homosexual separatists (I assume you've never been called a 'breeder' before), randroids, or whatever.

The issue of us having more homosexuals in society isn't even an issue. It's not a big deal. Anyone who thinks it is is a partisan moron. I just find the causes of homosexuality interesting.

I'm not a homophobe, or a racist, or a sexist or whatever slurs people have used against me in the past. I want to give everyone full equality and then have them shut up about their minority status and then abandon their ego and realise they're a part of something much greater than themselves.


----------



## Avan (Jun 13, 2010)

Diphenhydramine said:


> No-o, that's debatable.


No, I fail to see how it's debatable. My penis becomes erect when it sees attractive members of the same sex. It does *not* become erect when it sees any member of the opossite sex, not *once* in my entire life. There is nothing to even debate. Homosexuality is not a choice.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

Adasta said:


> Your suggestion that some people might want threesomes is not conclusive enough to deter the counterargument.


That wasn't my primary point though. My point is that men largely don't seem to care when women have had experiences with other genders outside of the heterosexual normative. It actually seems to excite them. This goes along with lesbians are hot theory. While it seems that most women do care if a man has done so, which goes along with homosexual men are not theory. The interest in female partners does not decline just because they have had experiences with other women, the way it does when men have outside sexual experiences with other men. 

You were talking about the societal level and sociological factors and I don't see how bisexuality is harmful in anyway to people in general as it doesn't harm or endanger any one. As to the biological factors yes, I am sure there is some justification there but on a sociological level I am not seeing it. Males who experience sexual fluidity aren't any different from females who experience sexual fluidity.


----------



## Diphenhydramine (Apr 9, 2010)

Avan said:


> No, I fail to see how it's debatable. My penis becomes erect when it sees attractive members of the same sex. It does *not* become erect when it sees any member of the opossite sex, not *once* in my entire life. There is nothing to even debate. Homosexuality is not a choice.
> 
> Have a nice day.


 Nobody said it was a choice.


----------



## yello (Oct 14, 2011)

Maybe more men are just coming out, or it might have something to do with the fact that there are too many men in the world. What if it's evolutionary? What if all men eventually become gay????


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Cetanu said:


> I don't think women's place is to not reject men and instead to submit to sex. That never happens.


What never happens?



> Why would a straight man say he'll fuck a gay man like a woman? Lol that's pretty gay in itself.


It's called hatred and bigotry. There's nothing logical about it, but these things do happen to gay men. Why would a straight man say something like the above quote, to a gay man? Because he is threatened by the thought that any man would allow himself to be "used like a woman". The rationale in this situation would be "Fine. You want to act like a woman by taking it up the ass? Then I'll give you what you want, and you'll like it". Not only does this kind of thinking illuminate the underlying reasons for the hatred of male homosexuality, it also illuminates the subconscious perceptions that society has dubbed as a "woman's place": Which is defined as the submission to the dominance of men in all things.

As to whether a man who threatens to rape another man is gay or not, I do not know. It's entirely possible, but rape isn't about sexual attraction, or sexual orientation. It's about power. Plain and simple.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Cetanu said:


> Oh and also, you would be surprised how many apparent "straight" males (even married or in a relationship with a female) are actually **** or bi. It's unbelievable at first when you realise it.


My dad for example. 

Thanks Catholicism. ;D


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> I think many people would find it shocking to learn just how many straight men have sexual relations with other men, just for the basic pleasure of having an orgasm.


Except for one thing: I don't orgasm most of the time. On purpose.

Figure that one out!

EDIT: Woops, I got the context wrong.
You are saying that straight men have such an urge to ejaculate that they will have sex with another man to do it.
Yes.
It's really stupid in my opinion. Why not just... rid yourself of the urges?

Hah.



KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> What never happens?


You just make it sound like the expected role for females is for them to submit to the sexual desires of men.

I don't know what country you're in but in Australia that doesn't seem to happen from my point of view.



> It's called hatred and bigotry. There's nothing logical about it, but these things do happen to gay men. Why would a straight man say something like the above quote, to a gay man? Because he is threatened by the thought that any man would allow himself to be "used like a woman". The rationale in this situation would be "Fine. You want to act like a woman by taking it up the ass? Then I'll give you what you want, and you'll like it". Not only does this kind of thinking illuminate the underlying reasons for the hatred of male homosexuality, it also illuminates the subconscious perceptions that society has dubbed as a "woman's place": Which is defined as the submission to the dominance of men in all things.
> 
> As to whether a man who threatens to rape another man is gay or not, I do not know. It's entirely possible, but rape isn't about sexual attraction, or sexual orientation. It's about power. Plain and simple.


I can't help but think that this is a very extreme and violent example that does not occur often.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Cetanu said:


> Except for one thing: I don't orgasm most of the time. On purpose.
> 
> Figure that one out!


I do this sometimes as well. 

Kind of reminds me of the classics (Greek, Roman, etc), where people talked about conquering their bodily desires in order to transcend them. 

I do it to remind myself that I am in control of my passions.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Cetanu said:


> You just make it sound like the expected role for females is for them to submit to the sexual desires of men.


The expected roles of women are to submit to men in all things. Not just sex. And yes, subconsciously (because of the patriarchal foundations of Western society) women are expected to open themselves up (no pun intended lol) to male "use". I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of hating men just because I don't desire to engage in any romantic or sexual activity with them. Why would someone accuse me of hating men just because I don't want to date or fuck them? What are the underlying reasons for this kind of rationale? The answer is, it is seen as "natural" for a woman to submit to a man sexually. This is seen as her proper place. But if any woman rejects her "nature", and or her "place", then she runs the risk of incurring the wrath of her community for deviating from her role as a woman.



> I can't help but think that this is a very extreme and violent example that does not occur often


It's hard to tell how often men (regardless of their sexual orientation) have been raped (except when it comes to prison statistics), because there is no "justice" for them. Society ridicules men who have been raped, and the legal system (including law enforcement) are just as insensitive when it comes to handling a case in which a grown man has been sexually assaulted. Gay men have been raped by bigots solely based upon the objection to their sexual orientation. But like with other adult male victims of rape, they simply don't report their abuse often, because there are not many places in which they can seek either help or justice. It's absolutely disgusting! But the point is Cetanu, you don't hear about many rapes against homosexual men, because you don't here about many rapes against adult men in general (outside of prison).


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> I do this sometimes as well.
> 
> Kind of reminds me of the classics (Greek, Roman, etc), where people talked about conquering their bodily desires in order to transcend them.
> 
> I do it to remind myself that I am in control of my passions.


You're better than me then, lol. Because if I don't orgasm, NO ONE is going to be happy! 

:laughing:


----------



## Cetanu (Jan 20, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> The expected roles of women are to submit to men in all things. Not just sex. And yes, subconsciously (because of the patriarchal foundations of Western society) women are expected to open themselves up (no pun intended lol) to male "use". I can't tell you how many times I've been accused of hating men just because I don't desire to engage in any romantic or sexual activity with them. Why would someone accuse me of hating men just because I don't want to date or fuck them? What are the underlying reasons for this kind of rationale? The answer is, it is seen as "natural" for a woman to submit to a man sexually. This is seen as her proper place. But if any woman rejects her "nature", and or her "place", then she runs the risk of incurring the wrath of her community for deviating from her role as a woman.


I'll keep my eyes and ears open for this type of behavior but I've never heard or seen it in my 23 years of living.
_Do_ you hate men?
Maybe you should move to Australia. We're nice here.



> It's hard to tell how often men (regardless of their sexual orientation) have been raped (except when it comes to prison statistics), because there is no "justice" for them. Society ridicules men who have been raped, and the legal system (including law enforcement) are just as insensitive when it comes to handling a case in which a grown man has been sexually assaulted. Gay men have been raped by bigots solely based upon the objection to their sexual orientation. But like with other adult male victims of rape, they simply don't report their abuse often, because there are not many places in which they can seek either help or justice. It's absolutely disgusting! But the point is Cetanu, you don't hear about many rapes against homosexual men, because you don't here about many rapes against adult men in general (outside of prison).


I agree with this.
Men don't suffer rape according to the general populace. What a joke!


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

Cetanu said:


> I'll keep my eyes and ears open for this type of behavior but I've never heard or seen it in my 23 years of living.


Don't keep your eyes and ears open for this kind of behavior, keep your intuition open because that is what you will need in order to decipher the implications of people's actions and words. Don't decipher a meaning based upon what people _say_, but upon what they "mean" (or imply) as they speak.



> _Do you hate men?_


I get along better with men than I do with women on average. But perhaps that's because when I was younger, I hanged out mostly with boys from my neighborhood. The only female friends I had were from school. But no, I don't hate men :wink:.


----------



## Dope Amine (Feb 16, 2012)

Maybe now that most people wont kill them, call them mentally ill, or attack them physically... Maybe they feel a bit safer being themselves?

Hopefully soon they can marry everywhere in N. America, and our society can stop treating homosexuals any differently from heterosexuals. Wouldn't that be cool.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

KINGoftheAMAZONS said:


> If the hatred of male homosexuality is tied to the belief that male/female sex is the only natural sex, then shouldn't female homosexuality be just as hated based on this same principle?


It should be, but it largely isn't and it isn't viewed the same way. Both are supposed to be unnatural, but female/female relationships are not seen to be as deviant or disgusting to the general public. 



> Yes, heterosexual men do believe that men should have lots of sex with women. I want you to tell me why? We've already excluded your success/accomplishment theory, and your assertion that "male homosexuality is hated more than female homosexuality because most people feel that it's unnatural". Why are we excluding them? Because if either theory were true it would not sufficiently explain why male homosexuality is hated more than female homosexuality (which is essentially the basis of your thesis).


Men are definitely defined by how many women they sleep with and how successful their heterosexual sex life is. So I disagree with your opinion that you "discounted" those claims as they are still central themes to how a man is measured as a viable male in this human society. 



> As to the part about men supposedly holding "having lots of babies" as a sign of manhood, I'm not so sure that's true in the minds of the average western male. In fact, I'd say that most western men actively seek to avoid pregnancy during that stage in their life where they are having casual sex. Because their aim (no pun intended) is to just have "fun", not raise families (or get stuck having to pay child support to a girl they hooked-up with once).


It's not about if the sex actually leads to pregnancy or not. It's about the fact that these men are considered sexually attractive and viable enough to successfully sow and spread their seed. If a man can have sex with multiple women he is considered valuable and attractive because he has shown himself capable of having sex with a woman and procreating, he has the choice to do that as he has women willing to copulate with him and have his children. Thus he is considered successful even if he doesn't actually have children with those women. The fact that he has the choice and that a woman is choosing to engage in sexual activity with him already shows his value even if the sex doesn't lead to pregnancy. 



> "Manhood" is explicitly linked to the sexual conquering of women. The action of "sexually conquering" someone always connotes the implication of penetration. With sexual conquest comes "power", and power is also another characteristic that is incontrovertibly linked to "manhood".


Then why are men aroused by dominating women or lesbian porn in which a woman is aggressive towards another woman? Why do these men not feel threatened by strong dominant women or feel threatened by these women who are "taking other women", why are men constantly aroused by the idea of two women engaging in sexual acts with each other with strap on's and dildos even though they could be doing it themselves? Why is lesbian sex consider to be so highly erotic to such a high representation of the male population. There is just a lot of this that isn't jiving in terms of your theory. 



> And because of this, male homosexual _tops_ are treated better than male bottoms (by heterosexual men).


Except in all of the cases in which they aren't. Gay men of any kind are not treated equally compared to heterosexual men. Even homosexual tops are not considered to be "real men", by heteronormative men who believe sex should be between a man and a woman. Gay tops are treated better then gay bottoms in the gay community, but outside of that gay community homosexuals in general are not treated as kindly by hetero-normative men who see sex as something that should only be between a man and a woman. Gay tops are not given the same respect, authority or power as heterosexual/hetero-normative men, they are automatically given less power and respect because they deviate from the hetero-normative belief that men should sleep only and exclusively with women, so I can't agree with you here. Gay tops are not given the same reverence and status as hetero-normative men who only sleep with women. 



> Why? Because male tops still have the "power" as they sexually conquer another man, but male bottoms exchange their natural "power" for the submissive position of a woman (because they allowed themselves to be penetrated); and therefore have willingly forsaken their manhood.


Except for the fact that neither gay men are given power compared to a heterosexual man. They automatically forfeit their male power when they don't exclusively have sex with women. They are not treated the same (tops or bottoms) as a heterosexual man. 



> The only reason why male homosexual tops are still treated as "less than real men", is because even though their penetrative actions still allows them to maintain their "manly power", their sexual activities still "emasculates" other men. And because this naturally threatens the entire conception of _manhood_, male heterosexuals in general (not all of course) will have a subconscious contempt for any man who willingly "destroys" the sacred structure of "manhood", by taking away another man's power by "fucking him in the ass".


I think we believe similar things, but we approach it differently. I don't believe that male tops are hated because they are taking another man's masculinity away from them, rather I believe that hetero-normative people believe that men should only have sex with men because the measure of a man is only quantifiable by if he sleeps with women and can procure a family for the next generation, and having sex with men is counterproductive to that belief and goal. Thus these gay men do not rate significantly compared to heterosexual men who are interacting with the world and achieving the ideal male goal which is to spread his genes forward to the next generation by seeding females and passing the genetic code forward so he escapes extinction. 

For women this isn't viewed as much as a problem because women are not as defined to this ideology as men are. They do not view competition in this way and there likely is not a shortage of men who are unwilling to engage in sex with them or give them their sperm to make children, and then go back to raise this child with another woman. Women control how many children are created and are born, their sense of identity and value is not attached solely to if they will have children and elongate their family lines. 



> And if men need female participants to complete their manhood quests, then wouldn't lesbianism (lesbian relationships that don't allow other men to participate at all) naturally threaten the ability of men to have lots and lots of sex and babies with women?


Lesbian relationships can exist with children. I don't really see the threat to the male here. There are lesbians who ask men to fertilize their eggs all the time in order to create a family and nurture children and become parents. Men don't necessarily lose biologically speaking if lesbians exist. Men do lose if they are homosexual though and do not sleep with women. Women are also less likely to see homosexual men as manly men who they want to have the children of. 



> And when you say that lesbians have value outside of heterosexual relationships, do mean that they have value as sexual objects for heterosexual male fantasy? What kind of "values" are you referring to?


I am saying that women automatically have value in society solely because they have the ability to bear children. Lesbians automatically have power and value in society because they are women who can bear children. 



> If a man's worth is based on heterosexuality, then naturally a woman's worth would also be based on heterosexuality.


How did you come to this conclusion? Lesbianism doesn't threaten the man, as much as homosexuality does. 



> then a woman's worth would naturally be based on whether or not she allows herself to be used sexually by men.


No. A woman is automatically valued because she has the ability to bear off spring regardless. Men are not valued unless they can in someway manage to impregnate a woman, this is why homosexual men are not seen to be as valuable as heterosexual men. 



> If a man's worth is based on making babies, then a woman's worth would naturally be based upon whether she carries and gives birth to a man's children.


No. A woman has value just in the fact that she is capable of bearing children, even if she never does have children she is still given power, worth and significance because she _can _conceive and carry a child. A man does not have that worth unless he ends up actually impregnating a woman, and even if they do fertilize an egg there is still a belief that men should fertilize as much eggs as possible in order to win in the game of competition towards other men. 



> The definition of the lesbian orientation rejects heterosexuality. Lesbians who are authentically gay would not allow themselves to be used sexually by men (in theory). And these same lesbians would also not be giving birth through heterosexual activity with a man (in theory).


There are lesbians who ask men for donations in order to have children. Biologically speaking these men are "winning" in the game of life because their genes are being passed on. These heterosexual men are spreading their seeds amongst multiple women and thus they are considered worthwhile men who are doing the right man thing buy having multiple children and spreading their genes forth. Homosexual men who do not have sex with women are not doing that, thus they are not as valued in this case. They thus aren't seen to be "real men" because they aren't pushing their genes forward. They are also not considered to be as desirable to women as heterosexual men who aim to spread their seed around. That's why homosexual men do not have worth. 



> and does not desire either a penis, or a male audience to watch her as she engages in lesbian activity, then people condemn her as "less than a woman", and a presumptuous freak of nature. Presumptuous because she is arrogant enough to believe that she can have a fulfilling relationship without a man being involved.


I have never heard that a woman is less of a woman for not wanting to have sex with a man. There are literally tons of women who do not wish to have sex with men, women opting out of having sexual relations has never been seen as a belief that she is not a woman. This cannot be said for men though, who are often viewed as needing sex and if they don't want sex with a woman then they are not considered to be heterosexual or a "true man." I agree with you on the idea that a "butch woman" who acts and dresses like a man would be considered odd, but a woman is not considered to be less than a woman just because she doesn't wish to have sex with a man, women are not seen to be abnormal if they refuse sex from a man or spurn sexual advances from men she doesn't like or are not attracted to. 



> I wasn't talking about the difference of treatment IN the gay community. I said that the gay community recognizes how tops and bottoms are treated differently (referencing the treatment given by heterosexual male society). That's why many "masculine" gay (and bi) men feel the need to explain the fact that they are "always a top" to those who are aware of their sexual orientation.


This distinction is largely meaningless, because they have already lost their power in the male group by admitting to their hetero-normative friends that he doesn't have sex (exclusively) with women. He had already lost the power compared to other hetero sexual men have in society once he commits to this act and admits this to other men in the system. The only power gay tops have is in the gay male community, they do not have any real semblance of power in hetero-normative culture. The power has already been relinquished in that world. 



> Absolutely not! I know for a fact that heterosexual men who allow women to penetrate them, are given the same exact stigma that gay bottoms are given. In fact, many people think that heterosexual men who like women to penetrate them, are secretly gay. A man being penetrated is always associated with being a "***" regardless of whether he's being penetrated by a woman, or a man.


I disagree with this belief. If a man is to be penetrated it is best if he is penetrated by a woman as then it can still be hidden under the guise of heterosexual sex, and not *gay* male sex (which society sees as the worst kind of sex ever). Men are only allowed to be rimmed or have their prostate touched and played with, with women -- never men as that would make them the worst thing in the world in their mind which is a gay man. As long as a man is doing these things with a woman he is still considered to be straight, he is still considered a true and real man and thus he still has the power associated to him as a straight man. It's not about roles, but gender. A woman can be sexually aggressive in bed and a man can be sexually submissive in bed but as long as it's between a man and woman for a man it's kosher because it's still a woman a man is having sex with. As long as a man is having sex with a woman he is valued. 



> You can't say that lesbianism "as a whole" is more accepted by American culture, and then use the growing trend of lesbian fetichism as proof for this acceptance.


Except that this wasn't my only source of proof that I provided in my arguments, and I feel short changed that this is the only thing you have commented on. 



> None of these are good representations of lesbian acceptance.


They represent lesbians in a multitude of ways that is not only sexual but also personal and emotional. These relationships are accepted as true relationships that mean something to the characters and those around them. I fail to see how these aren't "real lesbian relationships", when that is exactly what they are portrayed as -- loving relationships between two consenting people that aren't fetishized for males and are fleshed out to be authentic relationships. If you don't like them is largely inconsequential to the fact that they received prominent coverage and delved into the topic of love and not just sex for the male gaze.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

My theory: There are more homosexuals around now because it's only recently been accepted as a defined community. Defining oneself in terms of this community offers members a sense of belonging and difference, and does so at a time when most other definitions have either eroded or been deliberately destroyed. That makes it more likely that dabblers and deniers (and there have always been dabblers and deniers) will drop the pretense of being straight and will identify themselves with a cohort based on their sexual tendencies. 

Another way of putting it: There isn't too much that's real to people any longer, but sex is real, and instantly relatable. By self-identifying as "gay" one gets a certain definition in life that can no longer come with membership in an ethnic, geographical, ideological, religious or most other ways one could traditionally define oneself at one time. Those other categories are largely seen as either socially destructive or not constituting any real distinction. 

Or, in other words:


----------



## AstralSoldier (Jun 18, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> Before I say anything else, I want to make clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. I actually think it's great that you're so honest with yourselves especially with something that people can so harshly judge. My question is why are more and men turning to the same sex? Or is it just out of curiousity?
> 
> I'm sorry if I offended anyone.


Nope, no offense taken at all. What makes you think more men are 'turning' to the same sex? What if they were biologically predisposed to be gay, and the numbers are a little higher than what we originally thought? I'm sure some men turn to alternate sexual styles for curiosity, some for cash (if that's not disguised by some passive/unconscious gay interest) or for some other unknown reason, but it's a reason that is unbeknownst to the person who is solicited for sex, unless it's disclosed to another. I've had guys who seen me in a club ask me questions about it out of curiosity, but in all sincerity, it's all just harmless interest for some, and for some it's just a desire to know who they are on a deeper level; simply put, we live in an era where sexuality is becoming more 'honest' and truthful; if you can't look yourself in the psychological mirror on the depth of your being, you'll never really achieve a sense of self-comfort; everything will seem like a conflict against you because you're the only one uneasy with yourself. Sexuality is a multi-faceted thing, and I guess we're over due for a long hard look at it.


----------



## gurlcorporate (Aug 30, 2012)

AstralSoldier said:


> Nope, no offense taken at all. What makes you think more men are 'turning' to the same sex? What if they were biologically predisposed to be gay, and the numbers are a little higher than what we originally thought? I'm sure some men turn to alternate sexual styles for curiosity, some for cash (if that's not disguised by some passive/unconscious gay interest) or for some other unknown reason, but it's a reason that is unbeknownst to the person who is solicited for sex, unless it's disclosed to another. I've had guys who seen me in a club ask me questions about it out of curiosity, but in all sincerity, it's all just harmless interest for some, and for some it's just a desire to know who they are on a deeper level; simply put, we live in an era where sexuality is becoming more 'honest' and truthful; if you can't look yourself in the psychological mirror on the depth of your being, you'll never really achieve a sense of self-comfort; everything will seem like a conflict against you because you're the only one uneasy with yourself. Sexuality is a multi-faceted thing, and I guess we're over due for a long hard look at it.


... You know, this was very insightful, probably my favorite post here. roud: 

Man, I think being an INFJ makes me use certain words in the wrong context, like, "turning to the same sex." I didn't mean it the way it sounds. But really I didn't mean it in any context really. Which shows how clueless and genuinely interested I am in this topic.


----------



## AstralSoldier (Jun 18, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> ... You know, this was very insightful, probably my favorite post here. roud:
> 
> Man, I think being an INFJ makes me use certain words in the wrong context, like, "turning to the same sex." I didn't mean it the way it sounds. But really I didn't mean it in any context really. Which shows how clueless and genuinely interested I am in this topic.


Observation, and anecdotal experience taught me what I know. Just speaking from what I've experienced which is a LOT more than I can cover in a few threads!


----------



## jonkay1 (Aug 11, 2012)

I always wonder....... put 50 men and 50 woman in a room - who have NOT been within any society (imaginary world of no-judgement, ideas, beliefs blaaaaa) so they're pretty animalistic 

and see which sex they go for - who naturally sleeps with the same sex and who naturally goes for the opposite.

I know things arent that simple, but I wonder what people would be like if we were.... societyless- or.... just forlorn of presumption and judgmennt.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

gurlcorporate said:


> Before I say anything else, I want to make clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, etc. I actually think it's great that you're so honest with yourselves especially with something that people can so harshly judge. My question is why are more and men turning to the same sex? Or is it just out of curiousity?
> 
> I'm sorry if I offended anyone.


I suspect that this has more to do with awareness and fading of social stigmas. 50 years ago, openly admitting that you were a gay man was an easy way to lose your job, get yourself beaten up, and even thrown in jail. We live in a much more open world than it was before. 

_The times, they are a changin_.


----------



## Sonny (Oct 14, 2008)

tanstaafl28 said:


> I suspect that this has more to do with awareness and fading of social stigmas. 50 years ago, openly admitting that you were a gay man was an easy way to lose your job, get yourself beaten up, and even thrown in jail. We live in a much more open world than it was before.
> 
> _The times, they are a changin_.


Indeed.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

It's really just that heterosexuals have never really known for sure how many there are of us. We pass by you every single day of your lives, but you have no idea who we are, unless we make ourselves known to you. 

Now, as we come out of the closet, you are beginning to realize we are very many. Doctors, Nurses, Engineers, Police, Store Clerks etc......we are in every part of society and just now have made it known that we are here. Sure, people think that we only exist as male nurses, or hair stylists or on Broadway, but people act so suprised when that huge 6'7 Rugby player is gay, not straight. After all, he never looked like he was gay......


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

There have always been gay people. There have also always been women who date or marry younger men. It's just more widespread in the media now and socially accepted. 

I agree with @Shinji Mimura

Of course some behavior has to be enabled, but frankly I don't think homosexuality is one of those things, I believe it's innate. 

It's like how when I was growing up I had these neighbors where this 25 yo guy was married to this obviously 40 year old woman, and at another time I had a neighbor who was about 35 (she had to be, at least, her daughter was my age and her son about two years older) who cheated on her husband flagrantly with a dude in his early 20's who lived with his mother right next door to us. My grandfather's wife used to refer to the woman as "hot pants." I recall them getting a divorce, and me knowing why, but not saying anything to the daughter, who I played with. This was in the late 80's, not 2005. 

Same with gay people. I mean I remember knowing at least two distant relatives in my own family who were homosexual, one male and one female. One was an urban, professional, classy yet effeminate (but not cross-dressing) gay man and the other a ******* openly dykey woman who left her ******* husband for another woman. And this was in West Virginia. Can't imagine what was going on in more populated areas, and to people I didn't know, outside of my own family.

If you talk to anyone who is truly old, they tend have similar stories, I promise. Read Henry Miller sometime.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I agree with @_Shinji Mimura_
> 
> Of course some behavior has to be enabled, but frankly I don't think homosexuality is one of those things, I believe it's innate.


Of the few ACTUAL bisexuals and homosexual men I've known (I've never known a real lesbian female), they either knew, from a very early age, that they were bi/homosexual, OR they learned later on the explanations for why they felt the way they did at a young age. Either way, they either knew or come to know that they've always been bi/homosexual.

They didn't have to go through the ever-common phase of "I can't ever seem to get a guy/girl and/or it never works out with guys/girls, so I'm going to try the opposite sex, and if it works out I must be a homosexual."


----------

