• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this Proof That Sexual Orientation is a Choice?

matchlight said:
I can imagine that someone who has never felt any homosexual urges and does not feel them at the moment might consent, whether from intoxication, on a dare, or for some other reason, to engage in a homosexual act with a person who had a clear sexual desire for them. The person who had the desire might get sexual gratification from the act, but it's possible the person who went along with it would get none at all.

The physical movements, by themselves, are not enough for most people--that's what gives rise to the old saying that the most important sex organ is the brain. Unless you are already feeling some sexual desire toward a person--have had some sort of erotic thoughts about them pass through your mind, even if it's just imagining kissing them--any sexual contact you choose to have with them is probably not going to be gratifying.

That's where the discussion about choosing sexual orientation gets confusing for me. It seems to me that if the first experience was pleasant enough to make a person want to have it again, it was only pleasant because some sexual desire toward the person already existed before the action started. That's why I don't think a truly heterosexual person could choose to have a homosexual experience just because everyone was saying it was the thing to do, and still get sexual gratification from it. And if they didn't find it arousing, doing it again would just be a waste of time.

I think if a person is repeatedly engaging in sex with people of both sexes, they must feel sexual desire for people of both sexes. That is about as difficult for me, as a heterosexual, to get my head around as quantum theory, but the facts seem to show there are people who, at least at some times in their lives, lust after certain people of both the opposite sex and their own. And apparently the desire is strong enough that they often have orgasms with both types.
Click to expand...

It does get complicated.
 
calamity said:
Hmmm, as more and more people take on the title of "sexually fluid," does it not enforce the argument that orientation is indeed a choice? I may agree.
Click to expand...

No. It's just that people don't seem to understand that preference does not have to dictate 100% of behavior. Preference will probably dictate who you wind up with, but at the end of the day, there's nothing about being straight/gay that would necessarily mean you can't or won't see what's out there. Just because you prefer one thing does not necessarily mean you will never go anywhere near another thing.

It is not actually new for people to be sexually fluid. It's been true for a long time that a substantial portion of gay and straight people have had experiences with their non-preferred sex.

However, it is my experience that this is something most people do very young, and usually lose interest in as they get older and the novelty of trying stuff gets less interesting. I don't know many older people who are still sexually fluid, unless they were actually bisexual to begin with (which is not the same as gay/straight and experimenting).

Orientation is not a choice. Behavior is. Experimentation doesn't mean it's a choice any more than gay men of the 50's marrying "beards" made it a choice.
 
matchlight said:
I can imagine that someone who has never felt any homosexual urges and does not feel them at the moment might consent, whether from intoxication, on a dare, or for some other reason, to engage in a homosexual act with a person who had a clear sexual desire for them. The person who had the desire might get sexual gratification from the act, but it's possible the person who went along with it would get none at all.

The physical movements, by themselves, are not enough for most people--that's what gives rise to the old saying that the most important sex organ is the brain. Unless you are already feeling some sexual desire toward a person--have had some sort of erotic thoughts about them pass through your mind, even if it's just imagining kissing them--any sexual contact you choose to have with them is probably not going to be gratifying. They just don't do it for you and never will, no matter what act you engage in--or try to engage in--with them.

That's where the discussion about choosing sexual orientation gets confusing for me. It seems to me that if the first experience was pleasant enough to make a person want to have it again, it was only pleasant because some sexual desire toward the person already existed before the action started. That's why I don't think a truly heterosexual person could choose to have a homosexual experience just because everyone was saying it was the thing to do, and still get sexual gratification from it. And if they didn't find it arousing, doing it again would just be a waste of time.

I think if a person is repeatedly engaging in sex with people of both sexes, they must feel sexual desire for people of both sexes. That is about as difficult for me, as a heterosexual, to get my head around as quantum theory, but the facts seem to show there are people who, at least at some times in their lives, lust after certain people of both the opposite sex and their own. And apparently the desire is strong enough that they often have orgasms with both types.
Click to expand...
Interesting take. Ithink you hit on something that is at the core of this discussion. In bold.

I have some experience that may provide some insight. As a young man I didn't want to be aroused by what aroused me. It was a strange duality. I didn't want to be gay. I tried not to be aroused by what aroused me. I tried to be aroused by the opposite sex. It wasn't enough. I was in love with a woman. She didn't arouse me.

So I think there is truth in that statement, at least for some of us.
 
Some sources on hunter gatherer homosexuality.

SEX AND SEARCHING FOR CHILDREN AMONG AKA
FORAGERS AND NGANDU FARMERS OF CENTRAL AFRICA
African Study Monographs
University of Vancoover - 2010

Another reason we conducted a study of sexual behavior was that several years ago we asked Aka men about homosexuality and masturbation and were surprised that they were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them and how difficult it was to explain both sexual practices. They laughed as we tried to explain and describe the sexual activities. We thought that maybe they were shy or embarrassed individuals, but this would have been uncharacteristic of the Aka we had known so long.

All Aka and Ngandu indicated that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) was unknown or rare. The Aka, in particular, had a difficult time understanding the concept and mechanics of same sex relationships. No word existed and it was necessary to repeatedly describe the sexual act.
Click to expand...

Ecological and Psychosocial Correlates of Male Homosexuality: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Predictions were tested using the Human Relations Area Files database that (a) homo-sexuality would be rarer in hunter-gatherer societies and (b) psychosocial stressors of women would predict its increased frequency. Homosexual frequency decreased as a function of amount of gathering practiced and increased with size of the local community, supporting the first prediction. Lack of control by women in sexual matters predicted increased homosexuality, supporting the second prediction. These data constitute the first quantitative cross-cultural evidence for (a) environmental mediation of homosexuality and (b) Domer's theory that maternal stress causes homosexuality. The data suggest that homosexuality would have been rarer in our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Click to expand...

What Accounts for Cross-Cultural Variation in the Expression of Homosexuality?

These results strongly support the idea that homosexuality is increasingly likely to be present as population pressure increases. The percentages demonstrating the presence of homosexuality: 0 (Low, hunting and gathering), 33 (Low, hunting, gathering, and fishing), 44 (Medium, Horticulture, etc.), 57 (High, Intensive agriculture) demonstrate a marked correlation between the presence of homosexuality and the intensity of a society’s adaptation to the environment. That none of the exclusively hunter-gatherer societies had any significant manifestations of homosexuality is particularly noteworthy, especially considering that over half of high population pressure societies have significant expressions of homosexuality in their culture.
Click to expand...

All evidence we have available would seem to indicate that homosexuality and bisexuality are actually fairly rare in the most primitive of human societies; mostly being limited to ritualized acts even where it does occur. Conversely, the prevalence of homosexuality actually seems to increase in accordance with population size and sophistication.

There could be any number of reasons for that - hormonal differences brought about as a result of diet, increased stress brought about as a result of population pressure, and etca - however it does pretty handily discount the idea that we are a "naturally bisexual" species.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Some sources on hunter gatherer homosexuality.

SEX AND SEARCHING FOR CHILDREN AMONG AKA
FORAGERS AND NGANDU FARMERS OF CENTRAL AFRICA
African Study Monographs
University of Vancoover - 2010

​

Ecological and Psychosocial Correlates of Male Homosexuality: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

​

What Accounts for Cross-Cultural Variation in the Expression of Homosexuality?

​

All evidence we have available would seem to indicate that homosexuality and bisexuality are actually fairly rare in the most primitive of human societies; mostly being limited to ritualized acts even where it does occur. Conversely, the prevalence of homosexuality actually seems to increase in accordance with population size and sophistication.

There could be any number of reasons for that - hormonal differences brought about as a result of diet, increased stress brought about as a result of population pressure, and etca - however it does pretty handily discount the idea that we are a "naturally bisexual" species.
Click to expand...

Naturally bisexual may be a bit too blunt. I think we all find things in both sexes appealing butthat is a far cry from being bisexual.
 
Gathomas88 said:
I'll have to look around for some better sources a little later (I'm on my phone at moment, which is hardly ideal for research). However, even from glancing over what you've posted, some issues are apparent.

The New Guinea tribe basically practiced ritualized homosexual acts (i.e. all men being required to ingest semen from the age of 7 to 17 in order to satisfy religious belief that the fluid contained 'life essence'), not true "homosexuality" as an orientation. Likewise, I think basically all of the African tribes you mentioned were agricultural societies - as I believe the Native American tribe you referenced was as well - not "hunter gatherers."

Speaking in terms of anthropology, there's a pretty significant difference there. Some researchers, for example, have even gone so far as to suggest that homosexuality may be more common in agricultural societies due to the effects of all the excess hormones present in grown grains which would have been absent in the original, Hunter gatherer, human diet.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're smarter than that. The point was that your statement about most aboriginal/tribal hunter-gatherer etc. groups not being aware of, or accepting of, same sex members/activity is not factual. Ritual or not, in the case of that example, it was still a tribal practice. The other examples show actual tribal acceptance/recognition of bisexual/homosexual members.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Dude, you're smarter than that. The point was that your statement about most aboriginal/tribal hunter-gatherer etc. groups not being aware of, or accepting of, same sex members/activity is not factual. Ritual or not, in the case of that example, it was still a tribal practice. The other examples show actual tribal acceptance/recognition of bisexual/homosexual members.
Click to expand...

First off, you've provided exactly one example of homosexual conduct in a hunter gatherer society, and that actually doubled as pedophilia, and was being primarily pursued in some sort of bizarre, ritualized religious context. That's not exactly what this thread's talking about - i.e. more and more young people claiming to have homosexual or bisexual orientation. As my sources demonstrate, research on the subject has pretty consistently indicated that homosexuality and bisexuality tend to be rather rare in hunter gatherer societies, if not unknown entirely. They certainly don't tend to view it in the context of any sort of exclusive or semi-exclusive "orientation."

Secondly, as I already pointed out, "tribal" and "hunter gatherer" are not the same thing. The societies your other examples cited were all post-agricultural.

I never disputed that homosexuality tends to occur with a certain degree of regularity in agricultural societies, and neither have anthropologists. It simply tends to be uncommon in hunter gatherer societies. Again, many researchers believe that there might actually be something to that, either with regard to diet or population pressure.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
First off, you've provided exactly one example of homosexual conduct in a hunter gatherer society, and that actually doubled as pedophilia, and was being primarily pursued in some sort of bizarre, ritualized religious context. That's not exactly what this thread's talking about - i.e. more and more young people claiming to have homosexual or bisexual orientation. As my sources demonstrate, research on the subject has pretty consistently indicated that homosexuality and bisexuality tend to be rather rare in hunter gatherer societies, if not unknown entirely. They certainly don't tend to view it in the context of any sort of exclusive or semi-exclusive "orientation."

Secondly, as I already pointed out, "tribal" and "hunter gatherer" are not the same thing. The societies your other examples cited were all post-agricultural.

I never disputed that homosexuality tends to occur with a certain degree of regularity in agricultural societies, and neither have anthropologists. It simply tends to be uncommon in hunter gatherer societies. Again, many researchers believe that there might actually be something to that.
Click to expand...

Dude, you consider Native American culture non-hunter gatherer? You do realize that is exactly what they were for most of their history prior to the arrival of Europeans, right?

Then, the "traditional African" examples...are traditional because they are founded on ancient TRIBAL traditions, not modern changes.

There are plenty of examples if you go through the list concerning many different tribal cultures on every continent, including Europe. Did you miss them?

On the other hand, you offer nothing that contradicts my examples. What is your factual basis for claiming most hunter-gatherer cultures were neither aware of, nor accepting of, bisexual/homosexual members?
 
calamity said:
Hmmm, as more and more people take on the title of "sexually fluid," does it not enforce the argument that orientation is indeed a choice? I may agree.
Click to expand...

No, because people who understand science knows that the issue is whether it's genes or environment, not genes or choice. We also know that when the answer seems unclear, the answer is often "some of both"

But you go on thinking it's either genes or choice. There's no law against ignoring science
 
Captain Adverse said:
Dude, you consider Native American culture non-hunter gatherer?
Click to expand...

You realize that's actually a myth, right? The Native Americans were fairly well developed, probably roughly on par with the Celts, just without the metal working.

image_preview


Great Plains Alliance - NATIVE AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

Even the Comanche and Apache you named don't really qualify as "hunter gatherers," because they were regularly trading with sedentary agricultural peoples like the Pueblo for agricultural food, and had been for centuries before Europeans arrived.

they are founded on ancient TRIBAL traditions
Click to expand...

Again, "tribal" =/= to "hunter gatherer."

This is technically "tribal," if you want to be anal about it.

Cartier+International+Dubai+Polo+Challenge+bwUJeJVxXhSl.jpg


Only this is "hunter gatherer."

p0246c2h.jpg


I've made it pretty clear here that we're not talking about societies with agriculture. However, just about every example on your list (half of which wasn't even explicitly concerning homosexuality, but cross dressing, and other things, incidentally) had agriculture. A few of them were even developed enough to have full fledged Monarchies.

That's not even in the same ballpark, dude.

On the other hand, you offer nothing that contradicts my examples.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this?

Gathomas88 said:
Some sources on hunter gatherer homosexuality.

SEX AND SEARCHING FOR CHILDREN AMONG AKA
FORAGERS AND NGANDU FARMERS OF CENTRAL AFRICA
African Study Monographs
University of Vancoover - 2010

Another reason we conducted a study of sexual behavior was that several years ago we asked Aka men about homosexuality and masturbation and were surprised that they were not aware of these practices, did not have terms for them and how difficult it was to explain both sexual practices. They laughed as we tried to explain and describe the sexual activities. We thought that maybe they were shy or embarrassed individuals, but this would have been uncharacteristic of the Aka we had known so long.

All Aka and Ngandu indicated that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) was unknown or rare. The Aka, in particular, had a difficult time understanding the concept and mechanics of same sex relationships. No word existed and it was necessary to repeatedly describe the sexual act.
Click to expand...

Ecological and Psychosocial Correlates of Male Homosexuality: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

These data constitute the first quantitative cross-cultural evidence for (a) environmental mediation of homosexuality and (b) Domer's theory that maternal stress causes homosexuality. The data suggest that homosexuality would have been rarer in our hunter-gatherer ancestors.
Click to expand...

What Accounts for Cross-Cultural Variation in the Expression of Homosexuality?

These results strongly support the idea that homosexuality is increasingly likely to be present as population pressure increases. The percentages demonstrating the presence of homosexuality: 0 (Low, hunting and gathering), 33 (Low, hunting, gathering, and fishing), 44 (Medium, Horticulture, etc.), 57 (High, Intensive agriculture) demonstrate a marked correlation between the presence of homosexuality and the intensity of a society’s adaptation to the environment. That none of the exclusively hunter-gatherer societies had any significant manifestations of homosexuality is particularly noteworthy, especially considering that over half of high population pressure societies have significant expressions of homosexuality in their culture.
Click to expand...

All evidence we have available would seem to indicate that homosexuality and bisexuality are actually fairly rare in the most primitive of human societies; mostly being limited to ritualized acts even where it does occur. Conversely, the prevalence of homosexuality actually seems to increase in accordance with population size and sophistication.

There could be any number of reasons for that - hormonal differences brought about as a result of diet, increased stress brought about as a result of population pressure, and etca - however it does pretty handily discount the idea that we are a "naturally bisexual" species.
Click to expand...
 
Gathomas88 said:
You realize that's actually a myth, right? The Native Americans were fairly well developed, probably roughly on par with the Celts, just without the metal working.

image_preview


Great Plains Alliance - NATIVE AMERICAN AGRICULTURE

Even the Comanche and Apache you named don't really qualify as "hunter gatherers," because they were regularly trading with sedentary agricultural peoples like the Pueblo for agricultural food, and had been for centuries before Europeans arrived.



Again, "tribal" =/= to "hunter gatherer."

This is technically "tribal," if you want to be anal about it.

Cartier+International+Dubai+Polo+Challenge+bwUJeJVxXhSl.jpg


Only this is "hunter gatherer."

p0246c2h.jpg


I've made it pretty clear here that we're not talking about societies with agriculture. However, just about every example on your list (half of which wasn't even explicitly concerning homosexuality, but cross dressing, and other things, incidentally) had agriculture. A few of them were even developed enough to have full fledged Monarchies.

That's not even in the same ballpark, dude.



Did you miss this?

​
Click to expand...

They also denied any awareness of masturbation. I mean come on, they are lying.

35 aka and 21 ngandu who were *already married* were the interview subjects

This is hardly a large enough sample size and since they are married, one would assume it excludes those who are homosexual and just might answer differently. Very shoddy research work. In addition, with such small tribes and such high infant mortality (desperate to survive as a group), would anyone ever admit to same sex attraction? It's just like any small town in the modern world in that regard

They also used *plants* as sex objects. If your argument is that the 'natural order' of hunter-gatherers should dictate lifestyles in the modern world, then you best start advocating for sexual intimacy with plants
 
No, this is not evidence of the absurd notion that people choose who they're attracted to.

It's based on a false premise, equating bisexuality with homosexuality. I've not seen any survey that indicates the identity "homosexual" has increased, except that it's less common among the very old (likely due to the remaining stigma among their peers).

Bisexuality is an incredibly broad range, and most liberals even have long held that sexuality is on a *continuum*. Why would someone 20 years ago who has only occasional same sex urges ever admit to it? People are now willing to admit to it, and that is the reason the #s of bisexuals keeps going up.

Action can help to cement the identity, for one thing because it's difficult to identify "heterosexual" if you've experimented with the same sex AND bisexual is not taboo. Same sex behavior is more accepted now, so all this data proves is that more young people act on those urges or wish to act on them and, in turn, they identify as "sexually fluid" aka bisexual
 
Gathomas88 said:
Some sources on hunter gatherer homosexuality.

SEX AND SEARCHING FOR CHILDREN AMONG AKA
FORAGERS AND NGANDU FARMERS OF CENTRAL AFRICA
African Study Monographs
University of Vancoover - 2010

​

Ecological and Psychosocial Correlates of Male Homosexuality: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

​

What Accounts for Cross-Cultural Variation in the Expression of Homosexuality?

​

All evidence we have available would seem to indicate that homosexuality and bisexuality are actually fairly rare in the most primitive of human societies; mostly being limited to ritualized acts even where it does occur. Conversely, the prevalence of homosexuality actually seems to increase in accordance with population size and sophistication.

There could be any number of reasons for that - hormonal differences brought about as a result of diet, increased stress brought about as a result of population pressure, and etca - however it does pretty handily discount the idea that we are a "naturally bisexual" species.
Click to expand...

it's like you don't realize you aren't offering anything to confirm there is any choice is sexuality, only that certain variables we're totally unaware of and/or have no power to change (we're NOT reverting to hunter-gatherers) contribute to it

sorry but i don't see how this is relevant to the 7 billion non central african tribal humans
 
matchlight said:
I can imagine that someone who has never felt any homosexual urges and does not feel them at the moment might consent, whether from intoxication, on a dare, or for some other reason, to engage in a homosexual act with a person who had a clear sexual desire for them. The person who had the desire might get sexual gratification from the act, but it's possible the person who went along with it would get none at all.

The physical movements, by themselves, are not enough for most people--that's what gives rise to the old saying that the most important sex organ is the brain. Unless you are already feeling some sexual desire toward a person--have had some sort of erotic thoughts about them pass through your mind, even if it's just imagining kissing them--any sexual contact you choose to have with them is probably not going to be gratifying. They just don't do it for you and never will, no matter what act you engage in--or try to engage in--with them.

That's where the discussion about choosing sexual orientation gets confusing for me. It seems to me that if the first experience was pleasant enough to make a person want to have it again, it was only pleasant because some sexual desire toward the person already existed before the action started. That's why I don't think a truly heterosexual person could choose to have a homosexual experience just because everyone was saying it was the thing to do, and still get sexual gratification from it. And if they didn't find it arousing, doing it again would just be a waste of time.

I think if a person is repeatedly engaging in sex with people of both sexes, they must feel sexual desire for people of both sexes. That is about as difficult for me, as a heterosexual, to get my head around as quantum theory, but the facts seem to show there are people who, at least at some times in their lives, lust after certain people of both the opposite sex and their own. And apparently the desire is strong enough that they often have orgasms with both types.
Click to expand...

you're right about the repeatedly, unless it's out of desire to procreate (sham marriages), or being deprived of the opposite sex (prison). So yes, a hetero person can choose to have a homo experience and vice versa, but to achieve arousal and orgasm would usually require fantasizing you're with a different partner, and being rather horny. But the desire or lack of desire to have the experience again and again should clear up any lingering doubts

To me though, being highly attracted to one gender exclusively is itself a dead giveaway and makes any experimenting unnecessary and undesirable.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Orientation is not a choice. Behavior is.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Feeling sexual attraction is never a choice (nor is any other instance of feeling). That a person's feelings of sexual attraction may be complex or transient doesn't change this.
 
calamity said:
I interpret it as we would probably almost all be "sexually fluid" were it not for the social conditioning which pushes us in a different direction.
Click to expand...

the rate of some degree of bisexuality could indeed be much higher than previously thought, but we'll have to wait some time, until the stigma is practically eliminated, to see if those #s keep rising
 
Gathomas88 said:
Long story short, the Sociocultural Left's not going to be happy until we're basically living in a society with sexual values reminiscent of some ridiculous post-Keynesian reboot of ancient Greece. As they take more and more control over popular culture, that's exactly how we see behavioral norms shifting.

It's nothing more than a lot of pointlessly self-indulgent nonsense. We will ultimately wind up paying for it in one way or another.
Click to expand...

see this is what i meant in the duggar thread

you defend a sister groper and manhandler of prostitutes, because he has 20 kids (or maybe those are celebrated southern pastimes?), but god forbid two 18-24 year olds act on their urges in a consensual way. Suddenly one series of behavior is self-indulgent, but the other was just a correctable slip up

And ancient greece had pederasts everywhere, something no one is pushing for. That has nothing to do with the sexual identity of modern 18-24 year olds, who by and large are having sex with other 18-24 year olds
 
Goshin said:
Oh, I dunno. About half, maybe more than half when you're talking the younger set, kind of glorify LGBT. There's a lot of teen/20s gals who refer to themselves as "Bi" without any real evidence they are, apparently because of the coolness factor. Then there are LUGs...
Click to expand...

well then you have nothing to fear or complain about, since their identity/lying would not translate to actually being lgbt
 
calamity said:
I am socially conditioned not to be. That does not mean that given different circumstances I would not be. In fact, the evidence indicates that this is exactly the case. As social conditioning against same sex relationships relaxes, more and more people become bisexual.

The gay bashers have a point. Tolerating gays leads to more of them.
Click to expand...

It's not that they *become* bisexual, but they *identify* as bisexual because, as acceptance goes up, they are able to *act* on their urges, or at least embrace their urges

And you are ignoring that while the rate of bisexual identity has gone up, not so with homosexuality, despite the increased tolerance

Tolerating gays may lead to more same sex experimenting or relationships among bisexuals, but for exclusively homosexuals....it's really not gonna make a diff, and tolerance may even lead to less sex because it leads to marriage and monogamy.
 
Goshin said:
I've long said that human sexuality is far too complex to be reduced to some polarized notion of immutable inborn orientation.
Click to expand...

your religion has long said*
 
calamity said:
Ironic considering it's gays who play a significant role in policing speech, labeling anything said that they do not like "hate."
Click to expand...

well when the shoe fits...
 
Gathomas88 said:
You realize that's actually a myth, right? The Native Americans were fairly well developed, probably roughly on par with the Celts, just without the metal working.
Click to expand...

What?!? Please don't tell me that you actually think that for the vast majority of the estimated 10 - 13,000 years it took Native Americans to populate both North and South America that they were as advanced as the Celts were. Seriously? Your own citation is talking about the period shortly before Europeans arrived (500 - 1500 years). The Plains Indians didn't even have horses until AFTER the Spanish began settling in Mexico.

Since you like Wiki so much, read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Americas



Gathomas88 said:
Even the Comanche and Apache you named don't really qualify as "hunter gatherers," because they were regularly trading with sedentary agricultural peoples like the Pueblo for agricultural food, and had been for centuries before Europeans arrived.
Click to expand...

Again, a mere FRACTION of the time spent in North and South America prior to European incursions.

As to the rest of your stuff, what were each of those groups doing BEFORE they learned agriculture? You know, for the 100,000 years or so before the first evidence of farming in the fertile crescent and Egypt? Or the 2 - 3,000 year period it began to spread to other cultures generally?

As for the use of the term "tribal?" Just what form of organization did you think hunter-gathering groups had? It was CLANS and TRIBES!! Geez.

W/e. If you choose to believe against all rational evidence that homosexual behavior has not existed about as long as humans have, preferring the delusion it is merely some sort of outgrowth of "civilized" society, fine. You'd be wrong, but okay.
 
chromium said:
you're right about the repeatedly, unless it's out of desire to procreate (sham marriages), or being deprived of the opposite sex (prison). So yes, a hetero person can choose to have a homo experience and vice versa, but to achieve arousal and orgasm would usually require fantasizing you're with a different partner, and being rather horny. But the desire or lack of desire to have the experience again and again should clear up any lingering doubts

To me though, being highly attracted to one gender exclusively is itself a dead giveaway and makes any experimenting unnecessary and undesirable.
Click to expand...

I have a very good imagination, but even the best powers of imagination have their limits. There are situations where no amount of fantasizing would do the trick, however strong my libido. Pretending she was someone else hasn't even worked that well for me with women, the few times I've felt the need to try it.

Where both partners are male, certain acts could certainly take place, but unless at least one got some gratification out of them I can't see how the results could justify the effort. I have never understood how supposedly homosexual married men were able to procreate. After all, sexual arousal is not a matter of "where there's a will, there's a way." I think the most likely answer is that their desire was not exclusively homosexual--that now and then, they were able to get aroused enough by their wives to inseminate them.

I agree as to experimenting. That explanation has never rung true with me where the person doing the experimenting found the experience sexually gratifying. I think the truth the term "experimenting" is meant to conceal, out of whatever motive, is that the person who engaged in the homosexual acts really did not engage in them to find out if they would like them, but because the desire they felt already made them sure they would.
 
matchlight said:
Where both partners are male, certain acts could certainly take place, but unless at least one got some gratification out of them I can't see how the results could justify the effort. I have never understood how supposedly homosexual married men were able to procreate. After all, sexual arousal is not a matter of "where there's a will, there's a way." I think the most likely answer is that their desire was not exclusively homosexual--that now and then, they were able to get aroused enough by their wives to inseminate them.
Click to expand...

my uncle had 3 kids and insists he was gay all along. I'm not about to ask how he managed it, but keep in mind that back then it was the *only* way he could keep his job and have a family. In such circumstances it might be worth the effort. Also, what i really can't fathom is why he would end the marriage, costing $400,000 and move 3 time zones away to be with a guy, unless he was 100% gay
 
matchlight said:
I have a very good imagination, but even the best powers of imagination have their limits. There are situations where no amount of fantasizing would do the trick, however strong my libido. Pretending she was someone else hasn't even worked that well for me with women, the few times I've felt the need to try it.
Click to expand...

That's no argument. Projecting your lack of imagination and willpower as a measure of anyone else has no merit. Apparently large numbers of homosexual men (and lesbian women) were fully capable of doing it when trying to fit into a society that would otherwise ostracize them if they didn't.

matchlight said:
Where both partners are male, certain acts could certainly take place, but unless at least one got some gratification out of them I can't see how the results could justify the effort. I have never understood how supposedly homosexual married men were able to procreate. After all, sexual arousal is not a matter of "where there's a will, there's a way." I think the most likely answer is that their desire was not exclusively homosexual--that now and then, they were able to get aroused enough by their wives to inseminate them.
Click to expand...

That is an invalid assumption. I have a number of personal anecdotal incidents where, during my promiscuous years, I found myself in bed with a woman who wasn't quite what I expected. I simply used my imagination, pretending I was with someone more attractive, and did the job. I don't see why a gay male could not do the same.

matchlight said:
I agree as to experimenting. That explanation has never rung true with me where the person doing the experimenting found the experience sexually gratifying. I think the truth the term "experimenting" is meant to conceal, out of whatever motive, is that the person who engaged in the homosexual acts really did not engage in them to find out if they would like them, but because the desire they felt already made them sure they would.
Click to expand...

Again, you are projecting. Many juveniles are willing to experiment with their peers. When young hormones are raging there are all sorts of situations allowing things to be tried and rejected, especially among young males. IMO that would have nothing to do with any innate homosexual desire, and everything to do with trying some form of sex for the first time with a willing and relatively safe partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom