[Therapsid]

(05-30-2013 03:12 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Therefore, to answer your question, exposure to gay characters and the like has no effect on straight guys, but does on women -- as can be seen in the huge rise in bisexuality amongst females since around 1990. This is why feminists and their media lackeys push lesbianism. I hate to sound like a fundie, but for them it is a way to "recruit."

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012/...hangeable/

It's a subject of fierce controversy, but some social scientists, like Kansas State University's Walter Schmunn have found that gay parents were much more likely to have gay children. Since obviously many of these children, particularly for gay male couples would be adopted, this suggests that homosexuality is subject to some environmental influences:

"Schumm concluded that children of lesbian parents identified themselves as gay 31 percent of the time; children of gay men had gay children 19 percent of the time, and children of a lesbian mother and gay father had at least one gay child 25 percent of the time.

Furthermore, when the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s -- presumably after they'd been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation -- 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. (About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says.)

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/17/study-...-gay-kids/

[Blaster]

Quote:

Schumm next went macro, poring over an anthropological study of various cultures' acceptance of homosexuality. He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, "89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior."

Looking at "behavior" doesn't really tell us much because it's obvious that humans adapt behavior to circumstances. Humans can even make conscious executive decisions based on reason. It's pretty obvious that in a society that condemns and punishes homosexual behavior that members of that society would refrain from engaging in it, even if they desired it.

The question is what turns a person on, how do they lust?

[Screwston]

Kids are impressionable and easily influenced. I don't know if seeing gay shit will make a young person necessarily turn gay but I wouldn't be surprised if they experimented and kissed guys or something like that.

[Emancipator]

(05-30-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Incredible. That would have never happened in the 90's. Fags were always ridiculed.

The strangest part was the clique/group attacking me was calling me a fag and homophobe, just because this gay dude was in their peer group.

[Samseau]

(05-31-2013 01:11 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Incredible. That would have never happened in the 90's. Fags were always ridiculed.

The strangest part was the clique/group attacking me was calling me a fag and homophobe, just because this gay dude was in their peer group.

They were trying to shame you into being hit on by the homo. So you would be accepting of his advances.

I've seen gays do this shit plenty of times.

"It's just sex!"
"It feels the same."
"It's all in your head."
"Don't be a prude."

Etc.etc.

[Emancipator]

(05-31-2013 01:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:11 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Incredible. That would have never happened in the 90's. Fags were always ridiculed.

The strangest part was the clique/group attacking me was calling me a fag and homophobe, just because this gay dude was in their peer group.

They were trying to shame you into being hit on by the homo. So you would be accepting of his advances.

I've seen gays do this shit plenty of times.

"It's just sex!"
"It feels the same."
"It's all in your head."
"Don't be a prude."

Etc.etc.

[Teedub]

(05-31-2013 01:11 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

The strangest part was the clique/group attacking me was calling me a fag and homophobe, just because this gay dude was in their peer group.

Isn't that mutually exclusive? Unless you're a Jack Donovan type!

[Samseau]

(05-31-2013 02:17 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:49 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 01:11 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-30-2013 03:03 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Incredible. That would have never happened in the 90's. Fags were always ridiculed.

The strangest part was the clique/group attacking me was calling me a fag and homophobe, just because this gay dude was in their peer group.

They were trying to shame you into being hit on by the homo. So you would be accepting of his advances.

I've seen gays do this shit plenty of times.

"It's just sex!"
"It feels the same."
"It's all in your head."
"Don't be a prude."

Etc.etc.

Some more:

"If you close your eyes you'd never be able to tell the difference."
"Aren't you tired of dealing with women? Men never play games."
"Just give me one kiss, and then tell me if you didn't enjoy it afterwards."

Yes, I have been hit on by a lot of fags in my life. Especially in Boston this place is like 10% gay.

[cardguy]

I had a bit of a weird crush on a male friend of mine when I was about 14.

I still liked chicks and everything. But - looking back on it - it makes me wonder if kids are vulnerable at that age.

Perhaps - under the right circumstances they could be convinced into thinking they are gay? When in fact it is just one of those weird things that happen when you are gowing up.

I know a few others who experienced something like this. And like me - they are all 100% straight.

Now - just because of the above - I don't want you all thinking I'm gay.

I'm not.

And I will suck as many dicks as you want to prove it!

[LooTa]

IMo there's a spectrum of sexuality, ranging from hardcore homo on the left hand side, bisexual in the centre and unshakably hetero on the right. I think exposure to homosexuality could influence one slightly to the left, but only enough to flip someone who was already borderline. But this also means that borderline homos can be influenced the other way.

[cardguy]

Matthew Parris (who is an excellent writer and gay) in my favourite magazine - 'The Spectator' - had a theory along these lines.

He thinks it explains why some men can watch ordinary porn (a guy fucking a woman) and why others can only watch lesbian porn (a woman fucking a woman).

Personally - I don't agree with his argument. But he is a smart guy - so he may have a point:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/ma...-voice-37/

[Blaster]

Quote:

Second: a 100 per cent heterosexual male (a minority, in my view) does not want to see or be reminded of other men at all, potential rivals, in the sexual context; is irritated by their presence; and finds unalloyed pleasure only in seeing women alone besporting themselves. And a 100 per cent homosexual male (likewise, not the majority) is irritated by seeing any women at all.

Third: the majority of men, who are predominantly but not entirely heterosexual, can get a kick from viewing either women-only sex, or men-women sex.

In short, a completely straight man wants to watch only women. A completely gay man wants to watch only men.

Nah. I mean, I buy that there are bisexual men but I think most straight men aren't "partially homosexual." I'm sure there's a continuum of sorts but I doubt it's evenly spaced. There's a giant clump of men (60%+) that are completely straight and nothing about their porn preferences or general perspective on men and sex makes them "partially gay."

Basically men tolerate seeing male pornstars in videos because it's worth it to see a hot girl get hammered.

1. Men are turned on by the sight of women's bodies in general. Hot ones, of all varieties. Techniques that draw attention to feminine sex traits enhance this stimulation. (eg the way lingerie accentuates curves and physical vulnerability)

2. Men are turned on by the sights and sounds of women engaged in sexual activity.

The appeal of lipstick-lesbian porn is simple. (1) There are two+ beautiful girls instead of one and they can do things to draw attention to their sexual beauty and feminine vulnerability. (2) And they can do sexual things that get each other aroused (or at least the appearance of it). But they usually can't or don't do a convincing fuck. A male (or animated futa) is needed for hardcore sex.

Men may or may not "imagine themselves" in place of the porn actor. They may or may not imagine themselves as part of a threesome. People who get hung up on point-of-view and narratives are failing to understand male sexuality. A narrative, helpful sometimes if well-done, is not required for arousal. They're trying to explain something that doesn't need explaining. Simply the sight and sound of a beautiful woman is stimulating, and the more sensual and sexual the activity she engages in, the more intense the stimulation. The male presence is mostly irrelevant to that stimulation.

[kosko]

Environment can set of triggers for a host of things, from mental illness to sexual preferences its all connected to your outside world. A human only really controls maybe 15% of what it does while its environment will trigger and control the rest.

I believe that a good chunk are hard wired and genetically locked in out the womb to be Gay, but then as some have mentioned you have many that get 'turned on' to it via environment and exposure. I can probably guess that 90% of Bi-sexual men would fall into this group.

So this liberalization of homo culture will then lead to more homos down the road. This normalcy of homo life is not needed. Samseau and I agreed in another thread that the worst role model you could have is a Homo-male. He will be dead by 50 its still a toss up if he becomes successful.

The establishment pushes homo-culture because it breeds more and more submissive men whom are unable to rationally uphold their stature as Males. The establishment wants legions of men to be nurtured and down to get pegged while they are slaved with no urge to fight back. The difference between men and women is that a female can be emotional submitted, you can mind-fuck women to control them but a man still has to be physically imposed on. You can damage a males mind yes but its that Rubicon of where if he is physically dominated that is the point in which he looses evreything.

You have candid conversations with bi-folk and you can see the development of robust hamsters in how they rationalize thier choices.
"Ohh I only go that route during dry spells"
"Ohh I still prefer hetro relationships"
- So its just about the sex then, no?
"Well not exactly, it's more complicated then that"
-riiiiggggght.

The moment a man is internally dominated on a physical level his sub-conscious mind is now destroyed.

[BortimusPrime]

[quote='Blaster' pid='459093' dateline='1370093185']
[quote]Second: a 100 per cent heterosexual male (a minority, in my view) does not want to see or be reminded of other men at all, potential rivals, in the sexual context; is irritated by their presence; and finds unalloyed pleasure only in seeing women alone besporting themselves. And a 100 per cent homosexual male (likewise, not the majority) is irritated by seeing any women at all.

Third: the majority of men, who are predominantly but not entirely heterosexual, can get a kick from viewing either women-only sex, or men-women sex.

In short, a completely straight man wants to watch only women. A completely gay man wants to watch only men.[/quote]

I always assumed it was because the mechanics of filming straight sex typically result in male asshole and taint dominating the frame. It'd be interesting to see whether or not guys that hate guy-on-girl porn also hate the pov style where the guy is holding the camera, which is naturally pointed at the girl instead of himself.

[Emancipator]

Number 1 complaint of porn videos = the dude should shut the fuck up.