Ethereal

The reason I do not LIKE your answer is because there is no way for you determine, with any amount of true accuracy, which one is "sexually attracted" to both males and females except by observing their actions, which are identical. The fact is, as this question has demonstrated, you and Captain cannot identify a substantive distinction between these two examples. So, because you are incapable of making such a distinction you resort to semantics and fixate your position on the ethereal qualities of "attraction" and "orientation" which you bend and warp to suite your agenda as the debate progresses.

This is merely conjecture on your part. Once you've been raped and had a broom handle shoved up your anus then you can speak to the relative effectiveness of both methods. Until then, common sense will dictate that both acts are equally painful and humiliating and as such equally effective in asserting one's dominance.

Furthermore, common sense must dictate that people do no wantonly disregard their sexual orientation (something you put much stock in) in order to achieve goals which can be easily achieved through other means. If you believe people are capable of so readily acting in a manner contrary to their orientation then there is no reason to speak of it as it is merely an abstract concept which can be mutated and bent in order to suite specific environmental circumstances.

Hello! Answer the question without providing a legal or moral qualifier. Legal and moral consequences notwithstanding, could you have sex with a toddler, yes or no?

I misinterpretted what you meant by "set up", for some reason it carried a negative connotation in my mind. Apologies.

This is why I cannot stand lengthy debates. People always forget the context of our discussion. The context revolves around a paradox I have identified - that men in prison will willingly engage in homosexual sex despite their "orientation", consequently, I believe this is a negation of your theory that orientation is inalterable and that it is, in fact, largely dependent upon environmental factors.

So, given this context it is irrelevant to conisder people who are coerced into sex, have mental issues, are desperate, or stand to gain something these men do not. These men are not going to recieve an exorbitant amount of money to have sex with another man in prison, so why bother considering such a scenario? It is irrelevant. Let's remain within the context of the discussion, i.e., men who willingly and actively seek out homosexual sex in prison. The only motives worth considering are motives that can be feasibly applied to these men, some of which are currently under discussion. Can we agree?

And, yet, you believe that other equally raional people are willing to do just that in order to achieve said ends?

Nothing. It was my mistake.

Admittedly, I do not have such a study, but unless you have proof that the converse is true then we must apply common sense. Suppose, we did do such a study, and polled rapists asking them, "are you attracted to women?", what do you suppose their answer would be? I would venture to say that the reason such a study has never been conducted is that the answer to that question is evident, much as it would be for paedophiles.

Conjecture. You have no idea.

Someone who attains orgasm by inflicting pain on others has no bearing on orientation. The sex or species or age of their victim is inconsequential to the nature of their orgasm.

No, certainly not. Coercive sex is characterised by force. If someone in prison is engaging in homosexual activity out of a need to belong they are most likely being coerced in some manner. If you are speaking to someone who is trying to belong for reasons other than their safety or well-being then it is a ridiculous example as there are plenty of ways to belong to a group other than sex, unless it is not given to them as an option, in which case they are being coerced.