Genetically Gay

I was having a heated discussion earlier regarding the theory of whether people are born homosexual or if it's a choice. One of the things that confounds me about homosexuality is that some who identify themselves as such state that they were "born this way," but reality and science have yet to prove this to be the case.

What also confounds/angers me is that some in the LGBT community try to equate the trials that they have endured to that of racial minorities. It's insulting actually. Science can affirm "race." Whether it be via DNA or a genetic trait such as Sickle Cell Anemia or Tay-Sachs, science has a means to identify a person's "racial" makeup. In addition, reality can affirm "race." I can SEE that a person is of African, Asian or Native American descent, but can the same be said of homosexuals? No.

First, science has yet to prove that homosexuality is bio-chemic. In other words, there is no genetic or hormonally indicators that deem a person gay/straight.

And second, reality does not validate homosexuality either. A man can put on make up and talk in a high pitched voice, but that doesn't make him gay. Unlike a black man who LOOKS black, a man may LOOK gay, but that doesn't mean he is. In other words, the black man can't shed his skin, a gay man can.

Because science and reality can not prove the "born this way" theory, is it any wonder that homophobia exists and in some ways, is justified? Is it not insulting to think that one should believe something just because you say it's so? In a way, how is this any different from those who believe in Creationism vs. Evolution?

Science validates Evolution...the world is not a couple thousand years old. Reality validates Evolution...dinosaur bones aren't man made and yet, their are those who would like us to disregard the science and reality and "have faith."

In this way, homosexuals and Christian fundamentalists have a lot in common. Each would like us to believe in something that can not or has yet to be proven and if that be the case, why then would any one be wrong in asserting that both factions are full of shit?

I couldn't "choose" to be homosexual no matter how hard I tried or wanted to. So it's not a choice, that much is certain.

cont...

So ok, what if the homosexuals aren't full of shit? Well, if it's not genetic and it's not reality (something one can see), then that only leaves mental illness. Is homosexuality a mental illness? I mean, given people say things like, "I've FELT this way since I was a child" or "I always knew," it'd stand to reason that being LGBT is all in one's head. The question therefore is, can it be "cured," regulated or managed?

Mental retardation can not be "cured." A person can learn to augment skills and push the boundaries of their mental capacity, but there is no magic pill that will turn a mentally handicapped person into Einstein.

Schizophrenia can be managed. Sure, the current pharmaceutical remedies are trial and error and can depreciate quality of life, but science may one day have the ability to produce medicines that make it easier for sufferers to cope.

What's interesting about the above two instances is that there is a means to improve or regulate the condition. With a large sub sect of mental disorders this is the case; if there isn't a pill that can help you, therapy and learned behaviors can.

With that said, there is no "anti-gay" pill and aside from not kissing boys, how does one set a gay man straight? If it is mental, then that means altering the mental condition is possible and if altering it is possible, why should science/individuals resign to "it is what it is?"

This is why I find the debate over gay civil liberties so interesting. As before stated, it isn't genetic, it's not reality and if it's mental, then why is there not a "race for the cure?" With all other "disorders," society bends to "correct" the issue, not accept it, but with homosexuals, all society has been asked to do is bend.

In all other instances, society has fought mental handicaps by creating programs that do not ostracize people who suffer from them. We have special education courses, requirements for mental health in insurance plans and laws to protect these individuals from discrimination, but in no way do we resign them to "other." We will them to get better and we hold drives and fund raisers, not in an effort to affirm their conditions, but to make them more like "us." Again, why are homosexuals the exception?

cont...

Overall, I think that the inability to qualify homosexuality is what leads to homophobia. For most people, if they can't FEEL/SEE your pain, it's fairly easy to ignore/deny/not give a shit about it.

The other problem is that the LGBT community has done little to separate the homo from the sexuality. For most, it's about who you want to fuck and if that's the case, you can stop fucking...nuns and monks are not doing it right now. So no, your desire to fuck who you want to fuck should not be protected. This is not a civil liberty because if that were the case, NAMBLA's rights should be protected to.

So again, if it's a mental state of being, it should be treated as such. If treated as such, then gay civil liberties in the realm of marriage equality are a fallacy. In other words, yes, LGBT people should have equal rights under the law, but that does not extend to marriage. As before stated, doing so requires society to bend in a way that is contrary to science and reality and would therefore be akin to society mandating that Evolution not be mentioned/taught in schools because doing so offends the Creationists.

Thus, just as most in society do not want the Bible thumpers to dictate public policy, it's not unreasonable for those same members of society to take issue with the LGBT when they attempt to do the same.

Posted by enfant_terrible
I couldn't "choose" to be homosexual no matter how hard I tried or wanted to. So it's not a choice, that much is certain.

you can't choose to be bi-polar either, but once diagnosed, there is treatment.

thus, what's certain is, if being gay is a state of mind and not genetic/reality (something one can see), then where's the treatment?

@Beany,

Agreed. 20 years from now science may indeed find the missing link, but it hasn't found it so far and as a result, accepting that being gay is a FACTUAL state of being that can NOT be altered would be akin to believing that the earth was formed in 7 days. So where I may believe in divine intervention, I don't believe every wack job who says he saw Jesus in his pancakes, nor am I convinced that one is "born gay" simply because an individual says its so.

@TripleS, I think that the "history of sexual abuse" theory is valid in some cases, but not all. On one hand, I think it's wrong to focus too much on it, but I do not think it's something that can be ruled out in every case. I also think focusing on it gives too much voice to those on the far ends of the anti spectrum because for those people, they will regard it as the rule rather than the exception.

Posted by caligula

Posted by enfant_terrible
I couldn't "choose" to be homosexual no matter how hard I tried or wanted to. So it's not a choice, that much is certain.

you can't choose to be bi-polar either, but once diagnosed, there is treatment.

thus, what's certain is, if being gay is a state of mind and not genetic/reality (something one can see), then where's the treatment?

click to expand

Well doesen't say everything? Homosexuality isn't a disorder, and therfore like hetrosexuality it cannot be diagnosed in those terms. In order to determine that homosexuality isn't genetic you'd first have to find the hetro gene....

by that logic, there's a "sane" gene and in order for someone to be bi-polar, you must find the "sane" gene first. gtfoh!

as i said, it's not genetic and claiming it to be such is not MY issue, but evidence of your delusion.

And then again by your logic, hetrosexuality is 'sane' because it's a norm and it needs no further explanation, while homosexuality needs 'scientific' explaining for it to rightfully exist?

Anyway, bi and homosexual behaviour is very common in the animal kingdom as well, basically we're animals too so that's where the discussion ends for me.

Posted by enfant_terrible
And then again by your logic, hetrosexuality is 'sane' because it's a norm and it needs no further explanation, while homosexuality needs 'scientific' explaining for it to rightfully exist?

lol...yes. ie, having a uterus and a vagina makes me female. having a teeny tiny penis and shriveled balls makes you a male. or maybe you have both and in that case, you'd have a genetic abnormality. i don't need science to tell me that, but the fact that science justifies it, validates my perspective.

you have NOTHING to validate the existence of homosexuality besides an affinity for dick sucking by a dick bearer.

Anyway, bi and homosexual behaviour is very common in the animal kingdom as well, basically we're animals too so that's where the discussion ends for me.

click to expand

so in other words, homosexuality has nothing to do with a mental state, nothing to do with genetics. homosexuality is defined by who you like to fuck. it's all about sex. they want to put into law who that they have the right to fuck anyone they please? well if that's the case, NAMBLA members have just as much right. right?

life liberty and the pursuit of fucking? thanks for proving my point. twit!

Posted by size zero superhero


That's precisely the reason why I find 'molestation-->homosexuality' is a problematic concept.
Results of abuse are known to manifest in the form of substance abuse, self-injury & countless other psychological afflictions. But conflating sexual orientation with mental illness is inaccurate and an outdated practice(prior to the '70s, coming out as gay was grounds for being institutionalized in the U.S.).

outdated because society has chosen to bend which is exactly my point.

the question is, is this an issue on which society should bend and if not, why is society bending?

is homosexuality "normal?" it can't be. the purpose of sex is to procreate. the purpose of sex isn't pleasure. where monkeys may fuck indiscriminately, this doesn't change the purpose of sex.

even when you take a heterosexual couple who has trouble reproducing, there is most often a biological disorder associated with their inability to produce a child. if you take two men, they fuck and a baby does not result and never will, it doesn't take leaps and bounds to realize that there's something abnormal/anti-natural about the act.

also, as the other dude, you're defining homosexuality as being wholly dependent upon a sexual act and that only further negates its legitimacy.

ugh 😛

*angry face*

Posted by TV
Scientist have observed small populations of different speices of animals as being homosexual. Many in fact.

Homosexuals have been with us all throughout history. I don't believe its a choice,I didn't come to some crossroads in life and make a major decision...I didn't go "hmmmmmmm, gay or straight, both look like attractive options, but I think I'll with straight."

scientist have also observed asexual microorganisms...point?

the notion that because you don't choose, therefore it must not be a choice is horseshit. i choose not to smoke crack...does that mean i'm incapable of smoking crack?

or better yet, i have no desire to smoke crack. does that mean that if i get a good inhale that i wouldn't be a crackhead? that i'm preordained by birth to not be a crackhead?

and then you say, who would choose to be gay? well then, who the fuck would choose to be black...be a woman...be a latino? IF people can't choose their "race," they can't choose their sexuality...right? the difference is, i can quantify/qualify your race. i can't do the same for your sexuality.

you could suck a thousand dicks and still be hetero...ask the ancient Greeks...oh wait, they're dead.

everyone is born homosexual? mmmm...kay.

as far as the first people to walk the earth, you assume that the first "man" was a Homosapien. that's off-topic so eh....

you're not making sense and i don't understand your level of crazy...aquarius?

In time I believe that homosexuality will not matter and that gray asexuality (including demisexuality) and panromance will become more prevalent.

I GO WITH BORN THAT WAY
HETRO
HOMO
BI

LIKE MY SISTER SAYS SHE HAS THREE KIDS ONE OF EACH SEX.
WE LOVE HER JUST LIKE THE OTHER TWO
WHEN SHE WAS JUST A LITTLE GIRL SHE WAS PLAYIJG WITH BOY TOYS AND OUT IN THE MUD DOING BOY THINGS.
SO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT BUT WHEN THEY START LIFE KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE BEFORE THEY GO THROUGH THE CHANGE IN MY HUMBLE OPIN THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.

Posted by xygeneration
It doesn't make sense that one of the first man/woman to walk on earth was a homosapien? or it just doesn't make sense that homosexuality is natural and it could be genetic.

How does it not make sense that..ok.. maybe .. SOME..were born homosexuals? This is found in nature.

Hormone imbalances varies for every individual. "Your endocrine system is a complex network comprised of integrated hormone-producing glands and organs. Its function, like that of the nervous system, is communication; the endocrine system produces and releases different types of hormones to maintain and control a number of important functions throughout the body, including growth and development, metabolism, and tissue function. A hormone imbalance (either too much or too little hormone volume) can have a drastic effect on body function....A number of different conditions can affect the way the endocrine system functions. Some of these conditions are natural: our endocrine system functions differently when we age, for example. There can be a genetic, or hereditary, component to the way an individual's endocrine system works as well."

definitely a degenerate sign.

if you can't follow the arguments, the discussion flies over your head and you respond with stupid shit. i will indulge you for a moment though...

in this post you say it's hormone imbalances. in another you allege it's genetic. at the end of the day, you have proof of neither and because you have NO PROOF, your suggestions/theories/beliefs don't mean a damn thing. hence, the purpose of this thread.

Posted by james tate
I GO WITH BORN THAT WAY
HETRO
HOMO
BI

LIKE MY SISTER SAYS SHE HAS THREE KIDS ONE OF EACH SEX.
WE LOVE HER JUST LIKE THE OTHER TWO
WHEN SHE WAS JUST A LITTLE GIRL SHE WAS PLAYIJG WITH BOY TOYS AND OUT IN THE MUD DOING BOY THINGS.
SO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT BUT WHEN THEY START LIFE KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE BEFORE THEY GO THROUGH THE CHANGE IN MY HUMBLE OPIN THEY ARE BORN THAT WAY.

so the definition of a lesbian is a little girl that plays with trucks instead of dollies?

mmm...kay!

Posted by xygeneration
I guess homosexuality is in our genes and sexual orientation will be an individual's choice (?). Although the safety and health of individual and others must be put into account.

I am not for the idea of sex change, because it has permanent consequences and the mind may change preferences. Also, maybe if society were more accepting of gay and lesbians, maybe physical changes to the body would then be an unnecessary choice.
The nonacceptance creates more confusion and more resistance.

IMO

Sizzurp +1

again, i can wipe my ass with what you "guess" and the initial posts CLEARLY went over your head.

in regard to sex changes...wow! you really don't understand this topic do you? gay = transgendered? lol...u stupid.

Posted by Amandus
In time I believe that homosexuality will not matter and that gray asexuality (including demisexuality) and panromance will become more prevalent.

asexuality = hormonal imbalance + too much time on the internets
demisexuality = too much home schooling

Posted by xygeneration
Woopss excuse me Caligula.

I posted about hormone imbalance yes, but I wasn't too sure if it could be genetic. I posted too soon about hormone imbalance not considering it as genetic.

You said that it's just for sex, so I am asking you, would rape then be nothing but a sexual desire.

You have your own contradiction and since you don't know as well, maybe you are a degenerate sign yourself. Two people have explained it in this discussion, but you refused it. So maybe you don't want to accept the fact that homosexuality is genetic? After all, you were having a "heated" argument about something that you don't even have proof about.

so now it's not hormones, but genetics?

what is the "gay gene" called? when you can prove it, it's so. if you can't prove it, it ain't so.

your argument is non-sensical because you choose to involve science. science doesn't support your assertion. science doesn't give a damn about your beliefs.

also, i said "it's just for sex?" when and where? again, do you read? maybe english isn't your first language and if that be so, ahhh...

Posted by xygeneration
caligula- I never said gay= transgendered. I'm just putting it out there, the more people scrutinize gays and lesbians the more people would want to go under surgery for sex change. I have a friend who was gay since childhood, he was cross dressing and now he is transgendered. A lot of people teased him and I think he would have been comfortable as a gay individual, but people would say "but you have a dick".

lord jesus!

gay and lesbian does NOT = transgendered.

a transgendered person is not necessarily homosexual. a cross dresser is not necessarily gay/lesbian.

*wonders why i'm talking to you*

Posted by xygeneration
Sexuality has its own "race" and the more people like you don't respect* that, then the more we'll see some drastic changes. There are black people who bleach their skin so they can look lighter and this has a lot to do with racism. Sexuality is another race, that you may or may not understand, but for the sake of humanity you have to accept. Also, if you refused the idea regarding that "homosexuality" is seen in nature- in the animal kingdom then you really are not for the idea of homosexuality being genetic.

sexuality is a race? you like inventing shit i see?

there is no such thing as a gay dog. there are male dogs who stick their wees in other male dogs, but the same dog would stick his wee in a female dog, hump a ball, a pole or even your leg.

so by your reasoning, not only can a dog be "gay," he'd also be into bestiality if he sniffs your crotch and humps your leg.

"homosexuality" in the animal kingdom would be more properly termed "bisexuality." there's bisexuality in prisons too...the other "animal kingdom," but just because joe the butcher likes to get a lil male tail while doing a dime doesn't mean he's homosexual. it could mean that he has sexual desire and the nearest hole just happens to be a man's ass.

as i said, if being LGBT is all about the sex, then this whole gay marriage debate is a farce.

Posted by xygeneration
No, but transgendered starts from homosexuality. If you have friends who are transgendered, you'd understand.

lol...google can be your friend. you can say it over and over again, but that doesn't make it true.

as the person you +1 stated, there are some cultures where boys are raised as girls from birth. by your logic, in said cultures, mom/dad must that their baby is transgendered because the baby has a gay cry and likes pink pampers over blue ones.

Posted by TasteOfChaosss
What's up Tubs?

You reflecting on your childhood?

You played with GI Joes didn't you? 😉

no, just care bears 😛

Posted by TV

I do know gay people, and not one said "yeah, woke up one morning and felt like gettin a dick in my mouth"

you're moderately intelligent so if possible, please keep the entirety of what has been stated in the first 3 posts in your head when you respond 😛

it's not genetic - it hasn't been proven yet
it's not bio-chemical (with respect to hormones) - it hasn't been proven.
it's not reality/physical - you can't tell someone is gay by looking at them

the only other option is that it's mental and mental illnesses and disorders aren't necessarily diagnosed scientifically. i mean, how does a doctor know you're depressed? cause you tell them that you're really, really sad 😛

how does one know you're gay if you can't test for it? cause you tell me that it's so. ok well, you can tell me that you're the easter bunny and attempt to lay eggs too. technically, it'd be no different except for the fact that we have pills for the latter.

Posted by size zero superhero

To address concerns about the rate of procreation, humanity clearly isn't on the verge of endangerment. Conversely the current challenge is over-population; the birth rate has yet to experience a significant decline. Despite the availability of contraception and preventative education, unwanted children and orphans exist worldwide, therefore one's inability to reproduce is irrelevant in that it doesn't necessarily prevent couples from raising children(albeit not their biological offspring).

And let's not pretend natural occurrence is parallel to normality. The force of nature is, to this day, largely unpredictable and spontaneous.

it may be spontaneous, but it's not immaculate. 1 human wee + 1 human vagina = 1 human baby. the notion that you're bringing orphans into this is a waste of my time. given the math i just presented, why not counter my argument by saying "what about multiple births?" 😛

the purpose of a woman's eggs aren't to have them sunny side up. we don't put them on crackers and call it a delicacy either.

the nature of a man's sperm isn't to remedy pimples or cure a sore throat.

regardless of how human beings choose to engage in sex does not change the purpose for which we have sex. or look at it a different way...

why do we eat? what if we all decided that we didn't need to actually eat and before you say that's far fetched, it's called anorexia. what happens when you stop eating? death/extinction.

by nature, you need sustenance. it doesn't matter that food tastes good or that you love chocolate. nature doesn't care how you prepare your meals, it just requires that you eat and it requires you to eat for health and survival.

by nature, we need to procreate or face extinction. just because you like to have sex a certain way is moot. nature doesn't care that sex is pleasurable to you just as it doesn't care that you like to eat food. your feelings with regard to sex are irrelevant.

IF the world were gay/homosexual, if it was natural/nature, then what would become of the human race? we'd extinguish ourselves and frankly, i'm not aware of any species that has committed suicide en masse just as nature intended.

Posted by size zero superhero
*defined by a consistent and LASTING physical attraction

oh really?

human sexuality "consistent and LASTING?" explain that to the bitch in forum "x" who's really pissed off that her FWB situation wasn't consistent or LASTING.

you know what else can cause mass extinction? hemorrhoids. what if there's a mass hemorrhoid outbreak and folks asses just started exploding and shit?...literally. but hey, when the entire human population dies as the result of there being too many of us, make sure to post a thread about it and we can discuss it further.

oh and yes, there was indeed a sperm bank in the Garden of Eden...right next to the Dunken Donuts. so yup, having a kid with a turkey baster is so natural that women who go this route and the children they bear have increased health risks. health risks...just what mother nature intended.

also, it doesn't matter what i think. it's a circular argument. have you not figured that out yet? for every answer, there is no answer because the truth is, without science, homosexuality can only be validated by mental illness. a refusal to see it as mental illness (it's not politically correct) is part of the problem. if they were to admit it was due to wires being crossed in the brain for example, that would mean that they can be uncrossed...through medicine and/or therapy.

why does homosexuality exist is a valid question. it's just as valid as asking why do white people have "white" and black people have "black" skin? why do some people have blue eyes and others brown? why do some people have webbed toes and how can ear lobe shape be used to determine paternity?

science has answered hundreds of thousands of questions regarding the differences in human beings and where the day may come where they will be able to affirm/negate the genetic cause of homosexually, it doesn't exist right now and the reality is, it may never exist.

thus, if someone felt gay from birth and there is no scientific causes, if it's not the result of life events, if they felt that way at birth, the cause is more likely to be in their head, not their blood.

Posted by size zero superhero
Genetic and biochemical cause yet to be discovered =/= no genetic or biochemical correlation present.

At one point in history, seizures and hallucinations were widely viewed a sacred experience. During this period, man was without means or knowledge to determine the root of said occurrences.
Misconception has always been the go-to wherever there is a lack of concrete data, but why side with the status quo simply because 100% evidence isn't *currently* available? A few years of well-executed research can change a lot in terms of theory versus fact.

and when that happens, i'm sure it will be front page news, but it hasn't happened has it, so why argue it? unless you got test tubes in your basement, what entitles you to espouse a bullshit theory? hell, at least when columbus said the earth was round he eventually sailed across it.

i'm sure there are plenty of gay people in the field of science and if they haven't sponsored research in this arena, they should. but they most likely won't and they won't because it'd mean admitting that their sexuality is either a birth defect or a mental one.

Posted by size zero superhero

Posted by caligula

Posted by size zero superhero
*defined by a consistent and LASTING physical attraction

oh really?

human sexuality "consistent and LASTING?" explain that to the bitch in forum "x" who's really pissed off that her FWB situation wasn't consistent or LASTING.

How might this relate to sexual orientation, though?

click to expand

uhm, have you forgotten what YOU said?

Human sexuality is defined by a consistent and "lasting" physical attraction, not an isolated sexual act or even multiple acts for that matter.

a chick could have a FWB situation with a dude for years and where the years = "consistency," the fact that he comes over once a month is not. the fact that it's been going on for years makes it "lasting," but the fact that dude is married with kids means it's not.

i was just responding to what you said, but it seems you've forgotten what you said, so i'm not sure why you said it if you're only going to disremember having said what you said.

oh yes, studies have shown that men who have sexual relations in prison are less likely to continue homosexual behavior outside of prison. now say the man was in prison for 15 years and during that time, had a relationship on the inside with a male. chances are, when he gets out of prison, he will go back to being with women and will have no desire to reconnect with his partner on the inside or screw men on the outside. like your porn star, he engaged in homo activities for personal gain.

my question is, what distinguishes this man's stint at homosexuality from someone who claims to be homosexual from birth? if it's not the sex, what is it? whatever "it" is, has a cause. if that cause isn't genetic, it's mental. if it's mental, it can be remedied through drugs and therapy...no more gays. if it's genetic, it has the possibility of being detected. if it can be detected, the child can be aborted. and if aborted, homosexually can become extinct and dun dun dun...therein lies the truth.

they don't want to know the cause because they can't know the cause for if they knew the cause they might as well be mythological lemmings.

Posted by size zero superhero

Did these findings factor in the prevalence of rape/forced encounters in correctional facilities, or determine whether or not said relations were in fact consensual? Porn stars may choose to act outside their realm of preference for revenue, however in prison the consequence of resisting another inmate could mean life-or-death. If participating in homosexual acts in effort to remain alive qualifies as 'personal gain' and not sheer desperation, color me surprised.

you assume that all homosexual sex in prison is forcible. false assumption. never heard "toss my salad?" in fact, in the documentary that inspired that term, one of the prisoners was very candid and stated that prison officials should provide condoms. everyone knows there's sex in prison...consensual and yes, ass rape too.

Posted by size zero superhero


Opinions are not sacred.

agreed. you opinions are derived from your ass and therefore can not be holy.

i on the other hand have holy shit.

What if some ignorant folk says to you it can't be genetic because the penis (or vagina for that matter) is only designed for urination and coitus?

(don't answer if already covered) ... The ignorant perspective that is.



And every guy goes through a gay phase btw.


For some strange but beautiful reason, another mans boner feels so much more magnificent then your own

Posted by caligula

the purpose of a woman's eggs aren't to have them sunny side up. we don't put them on crackers and call it a delicacy either.

the nature of a man's sperm isn't to remedy pimples or cure a sore throat.

Same thing i said. But no where near as sick, funny and twisted the way you said it.



And does man sperm really remedy pimples?

I think i just came up with a genius idea ... GET ME TRUMP! And Sugar.






blockquote>

Posted by Caligula>

we don't put them on crackers and call it a delicacy



HAHAHA.

I bet some indigenous folk do

HAHA YES I WAS ABOUT TO SAY I FUCKED UP THAT WHOLE MESSAGE BUT NOT ANYMORE! YES.

BLUE UNDERLINE BITCHES!

bookmarked

P Angel that little genius, she hid this from dxp for centuries. Now it's out there. For the world to see. All thanks to me

omg and when you click it. (the legendary blue underline that is) it flashes red! Awesome.

Posted by caligula
oh and yes, there was indeed a sperm bank in the Garden of Eden...right next to the Dunken Donuts.

God bless America

Posted by caligula

Posted by size zero superhero

Did these findings factor in the prevalence of rape/forced encounters in correctional facilities, or determine whether or not said relations were in fact consensual? Porn stars may choose to act outside their realm of preference for revenue, however in prison the consequence of resisting another inmate could mean life-or-death. If participating in homosexual acts in effort to remain alive qualifies as 'personal gain' and not sheer desperation, color me surprised.

you assume that all homosexual sex in prison is forcible. false assumption. never heard "toss my salad?" in fact, in the documentary that inspired that term, one of the prisoners was very candid and stated that prison officials should provide condoms. everyone knows there's sex in prison...consensual and yes, ass rape too.

click to expand

Iv'e always said prisoners would have a field day with my ass. The soft pale milky skin. The fullness. The roundness. The perkiness. (For a white guy this is impressive btw) and the wobble. Not to mention perfect amount of muscle tone. Those bad boys wouldn't last 2 minutes.

who thinks my comedy is a blatant deflection to hide my homosexual tendencies?

@AA, i admire/am jealous in the presence of some women's asses. as a black woman, a nice, fat, ridiculously round ass is coveted. to most most white folk, outside of those who covet Kim Kardashian and believe that everything is a-ok when it's on a non-black woman, a non-existent ass is coveted.

with that said, just cause i admire a woman's ass or breasts doesn't mean i want to suck or grab them. i'd much rather do that to man and sadly, as a woman, i'm allowed to speak positively of a woman's assets, but as a man, IF you do the same, that makes you gay in most Western cultures.

what you as a male have to ask yourself is that IF you admire another male's physicality, are your responses to him homophobic or is he simply a damn good looking male? if you can identify an ugly mo-fo, you can identify one who is not. identifying one who is not doesn't make you gay.

all that said, just cause your dick gets hard doesn't make you gay. if that were the case, ask any mom with a male child if that's the case. cleansing a male child can result in his wee getting hard and only a sick individual would equate this to "he wanted it."

physicality is what it is and if homosexuality is surmised by whether you get a rise or not...

Posted by AA

Posted by caligula

Posted by size zero superhero

Did these findings factor in the prevalence of rape/forced encounters in correctional facilities, or determine whether or not said relations were in fact consensual? Porn stars may choose to act outside their realm of preference for revenue, however in prison the consequence of resisting another inmate could mean life-or-death. If participating in homosexual acts in effort to remain alive qualifies as 'personal gain' and not sheer desperation, color me surprised.

you assume that all homosexual sex in prison is forcible. false assumption. never heard "toss my salad?" in fact, in the documentary that inspired that term, one of the prisoners was very candid and stated that prison officials should provide condoms. everyone knows there's sex in prison...consensual and yes, ass rape too.

Iv'e always said prisoners would have a field day with my ass. The soft pale milky skin. The fullness. The roundness. The perkiness. (For a white guy this is impressive btw) and the wobble. Not to mention perfect amount of muscle tone. Those bad boys wouldn't last 2 minutes.

click to expand

yay! you know who Mr.DXP is...just like you KNEW i was white? you're a paranoid mofo.

i'm happy to hear that you have a tight ass. i'm happy to hear that you think your ass will be coveted by other males. congrats!

oh and AA, don't be worried about people's perception of you. if you like the feel of a man's member, so be it. you don't have to explain it to me or anyone else. frankly, i like it too. with that said, don't try to convince me it's something beyond a big, hard dick that you desire. as you said, "for some strange but beautiful reason, another mans boner feels so much more magnificent then your own."

oh and before i go to bed, this thread is evidence that white folks are cowards and bigots. you don't discuss race. you don't discuss sexuality. you'd rather sit on the sidelines and gawk.

you're so afraid of offending that when you choose to offend in public for fear that it will sully your public persona, so you do it in "quiet rooms."

*yawns*

ugh!

^you're so afraid of offending. WHEN you choose to offend in public YOU fear that it will sully your public persona, so you do it in "quiet rooms."

Posted by caligula
oh and AA, don't be worried about people's perception of you. if you like the feel of a man's member, so be it. you don't have to explain it to me or anyone else. frankly, i like it too. with that said, don't try to convince me it's something beyond a big, hard dick that you desire. as you said, "for some strange but beautiful reason, another mans boner feels so much more magnificent then your own."

Yea, what you like is what you like.

I don't see you any differently than how I've always had.



If anyone has a problem with it they can go grab a ticket with an insanely long digit and wait for God to come and say, "He be he".
And then they'll be like, "Shit man...we fuckin stupid as fuck."

Posted by Amandus

In time I believe that homosexuality will not matter and that gray asexuality (including demisexuality) and panromance will become more prevalent.

Without doubt .... I can personally attest to the actuality of asexuality.

Posted by AA

And every guy goes through a gay phase btw.


For some strange but beautiful reason, another mans boner feels so much more magnificent then your own

And every girl, as well.

At a young age, and sometimes at an adult age ... they can't seem to NOT look at other woman's tits, ass and camel toes.

And YES, looking at sexual organs and appendages IS based around a sexual thought.