Ethereal

How is this not semantical? You're quibbling over the difference between homosexual "behavior" and "orientation" as if they had some sort of substantive difference. Without your arbitary and nonsensical fixation on the meaning of these words there exists no actual difference between the two. Someone who willingly has sex with both sexes is a bisexual. Without the exceptions of coercion and pure desperation you have no solid differentiation between the two. More importantly, your basing your entire argument off of your own personal theory that one's sexual orientation is somehow inalterable, which is merely hypothetical, so your entire argument is moot.

Anecdotal.

What motive exists besides attraction, coercion, or utter desperation that could cause a person to willingly seek out homosexual sex in prison which is not attainable through means other than sex?

Such as?

A person who represses their sexual desire out of shame is not the same as a person who shamelessly and willingly engages exclusively in homosexual activity. So, how can a person who shamelessly and willingly engages exclusively in homosexual activity be considered a heterosexual?

This speaks volumes. So, you admit homosexual "behavior" can be used as a means to satiate one's sexual desires given there exists no viable alternative?

You are using arbitrary social valuations to discount the demonstrable preference practiced by Athenian pederasts. Simply because modern society considers pederasty to be a disorder does not negate the fact the Athenians demonstrated a preference or orientation towards young boys. The age of the person merely increases the specification of the orientation, and the fact that Athenian pederasty occured exclusively among males provides a substantive linkage to homosexuality.

Inconclusive evidence is meaningless.

Ethereal

Distinctions are not relevant in and of themselves. They must have a basis in logic and these do not.

How so? If one wishes to assert their physical dominance over another individual why choose rape over physical violence if not for the attainment of sexual pleasure?

This also brings us to another point. If people are able to wantonly engage in sexual activity with no regard for their "orientation" then why speak of orientation at all? Doesn't this infer that we are sexually blank slates if circumstance can cause people to act a manner contradictory to their orientation?

It is a way to achieve both sexual pleasure and physical dominance.

So, you could achieve sexual intimacy with a toddler? There should be no reason you couldn't given your assessment.

Paedophilia and bestiality are sexual preferences. Their status as disorders does not negate this fact.

Rape is about the attainment of sexual pleasure as well. If one wished soley to achieve power and dominance over another individual they could just as easily beat them with a bat or tie them to the back of a truck. The benifit of rape is that if affords the rapist pleasure while suiting their ulterior motive of asserting dominance. This is a fact.

Is sex not also a way to achieve pleasure? If dominance were the only consideration then sex as a means to achieve it would be nonsensical.

People who engage in sexual activities because of mental issues are not a negation of my stance. When you can explain the substantive difference between a bisexual and a heterosexual who willingly, and with sound mind, engages in homosexual activity then you will have negated my position.

I believe the dictionary has already taken the liberty of defining attraction...

rivrrat

Sexual desire and/or attraction.

But sexual dominance achieves submission, degregation, humiliation. So much more than just punching someone.

And yes, one certainly CAN achieve intimacy with someone they don't find attractive. Women do it all the time. Men too, but mostly women.

Not unless they are old enough where I wouldn't feel I was causing them harm. I'd have to feel the situation was felt mutually positive.

Someone promised to set my parents, sister, nieces and nephew up for life I would **** a dog in a heartbeat without hesitation. Hell, I'd cut off a finger for it too. And the animal makes a HUGE difference because there are some that would/could cause me considerable harm.

WHAT? Rapists don't rape those they don't find attractive? You really know absolutely nothing about the driving force behind serial rapists, do you? It's not attraction that drives them.

But none that achieve the submission, humiliation, and degregation that forcing sex on someone does. Such a violation leaves the victim feeling much more degregated and emotionally harmed than simply whacking them on the head could ever do.

Desire to belong is coercion? Since when?

And yes, once more, one certainly can achieve intimacy with someone they don't find attractive.

__________________

Ethereal

You cannot speak to a person's individual desire/attraction therefore this is not a substantive distinction. Here's a test, one man willingly has sex with both men and women, whereas another man willingly has sex with both men and women, which one is bisexual and what's the substantive difference between the two?

How so? Are you any more likely to get lippy towards someone who beat you to within an inch of your life and has the power to kill you than you are towards someone who raped you?

Also, sexual dominance can be achieved through means other than rape. One need not their penis in order to commit sodomy.

These blanket statements have no basis in fact. A person must be at least partially attracted to another person in order to achieve sexual intimacy, that's the whole point. If one used your logic it would be possible for a rape victim to achieve sexual intimacy with their attacker or for a child to achieve sexual intimacy with a paedophile. Are you capable of achieving sexual intimacy with a dog or a toddler?

Basically, that there was some form of mutual attraction between the two of you.

This is coercrion. We are not speaking to coercion. Is there a situation in which you would actively and willingly seek out sex with an animal?

Fair enough.

It is both. I'm not discounting either motive. It is you who is reaching here in order to rationalize your position. To claim that attraction has nothing to do with rape is an utter fallacy. Serial rapists act upon their attraction to women and their need to assert dominance. A serial rapist must first be attracted to women before he could wish to assert his dominance over them sexually.

Like I said it makes no difference whether a person sticks their penis in your anus or a broom handle in your anus. They have the same effect except one does not afford the instigator the pleasure of an orgasm.

If someone is having homosexual sex in prison out of a desire to belong they are either being coerced or they are simply acting upon a latent attraction to other men. There are other ways to belong to a group that don't involve homosexual sex.

rivrrat

I already told you the difference between the two. You just don't wish to accept it.

The rape is far more humiliating.

If I am having sex with them, I am being sexually intimate. I need not be attracted to them in order to have sex.

Otherwise it would be rape on my part, and I couldn't do that. So yes.

Receiving payment for doing something is coercion? I think I'll sue my boss then for coercing me to come to work.

With your defintion of coercion being so inclusive, it would be impossible for any of us to escape it.


Attraction CAN play a part, but doesn't have to. A man who rapes women may or may not be a heterosexual, but he does not always choose the women he rapes out of an attraction for them specifically.

No, doesn't quite have the same effect.

Additionally, someone raping someone else with a foreign object may very well provide the rapist with an orgasm. Hell, beating them may too.

Again with the coercion.

1069

I don't agree with that.
Animals are incapable of informed consent.
They don't know what the hell they're doing.
It's a betrayal of their trust.

A snake, I guess, whatever.
It's not like you'd be "having sex with it"; you might somehow induce or force it to shove its entire body up your twat, although I'm not sure how.
I still don't think it's a very ethical thing to do, though. It would probably die. It's akin to torture just for the hell of it.
I realize a snake is a lower life form than a mammal, but I never agreed with kids who blew up frogs with fire crackers, either.
There's no reason to torture animals for the fun of it. It's not right.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

Ethereal

Why would I accept something you cannot accurately speak to? Why do you continue to dodge the issue? Answer the question...

One man willingly has sex with both males and females, whereas another man willingly has sex with both males and females, which one is a bisexual?

We're speaking strictly to the effectiveness of the method, and the relative humiliation accompanied by the method has little to no bearing on the effectiveness of the method. Physical violence or the threat thereof is just as effective as rape in asserting one's dominance.

Furthermore, rape increases the risk to the violater of contracting a disease or evoking a retaliatory response from their victim. So, why would they accept the extra risk that accompanies rape? Because it affords them sexual pleasure.

Intimacy infers a sense of comfort and familiarity - it is not a purely physical interaction - if this were the case a woman could attain sexual intimacy with a rapist or a child with a paedophile.

Legal and moral consequences notwithstanding could you have sex with a toddler?

You weren't talking about being paid, you were talking about copulating with a dog in order to save your family's life, which is coercion. Furthermore, in the event someone actually paid you a substantial amount of money to have sex with an animal you would stand to gain something other than sexual gratification so it is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Let me rephrase the question more appropriately so you do not keep coming up with irrelevant rationalizations for having sex with an animal. If the only benefit were sexual gratification, asserting your dominance, or achieving sexual intimacy would you willingly have sex with an animal or a child? Also, consider each motive seperately and not conjointly.

Perhaps you just need to pay more attention.

Whether or not a rapist demonstrates a specific attraction towards a particular victim is irrelevant, it is their general attraction towards women which matters. A person who does not exhibit a general attraction towards women will not rape them, just as a person who does not exhibit a general attraction towards children will not rape them either.

How would you know? When's the last time someone broke a broom handle off in your rectum? Stop splitting hairs.

What does this have to do with sexual orientation?

You're the ones who keep bringing up examples of coercive sex, I'm merely affirming that the coercive aspect of sex is immaterial to the nature of our discussion. So, simply stop refering to coercive sex and I won't be inclined to point it out.

1069

Her point may be that a man isn't gay or bisexual unless he's sexually attracted to men, and a woman can't be gay or bisexual unless she's sexually attracted to women.

There are many reasons people have sex besides attraction.
A man who has sex with another man for some reason other than being sexually attracted to him, a man who has never been sexually attracted to men, even though he's had sex with a man on one or more occasions... isn't gay or bisexual.
He's heterosexual.

Same with a woman.

Just like a gay guy, who has never been attracted to women but has had sex with a woman for some reason other than sexual attraction, or even a closeted gay who is married with children, isn't "straight" or "bi", if he's only sexually attracted to members of his own sex.

rivrrat

I answered it. Repeatedly. There is no dodge. You just don't LIKE my answer. That's not my problem.

Whichever one is sexually attracted to both males and females.

Humiliation in front of a group has a HUGE bearing on the effectiveness of the method. And no, physical violence does not have the same effect.

They are not of an age I consider capable of informed consent, so no.

No, I was talking about being paid enough to set my family up for life.

In just about any sexual relationship there is something to be gained other than *just* sexual gratification. So they are all irrelevant.

Unless we're actually talking about reasons people have sex when they AREN'T attracted to the person they're having sex with.


No. But then there's a lot of men I wouldn't have had sex with either if those were the only reasons to.


To what?

I disagree. Do you have a research link to prove that a man who isn't attracted to women will NEVER rape a woman? Have they DONE research on that?


I think I do have some idea.

You're the one who brought it up as some kind of qualifier, not me.

So, coercive sex is when you get something out of it other than sexual gratification? Is that what you're telling me?

CaptainCourtesy

You are refusing to listen because you do not want to. The argument is not semantical and I have explained, quite clearly, the difference between sexual behavior and sexual orientation. If you refuse to accept these facts, that is your problem. Further, one's sexual orientation is unalterable; sexual behavior is not. I would like to see you present evidence that sexual orientation can be altered...and please do not post anything from NARTH. Nothing from there has any credibility. You are basing your entire argument on "exceptions proving the rule". I can be aggressive with someone. That doesn't mean I am an aggressive person. I may mean I behaved aggressively in that situation. This analogy is similar to sexual behavior. Because someone behaves, sexually, in a certain way, does not denote their sexual orientation. There are more components that go into sexual orientation, that just sexual behavior.

Wikipedia does a good job of defining sexual orientation. I will highlight the important passages for you:

Notice that sexual orientation has to do with several components, behavioral being only one. Behavior and orientation are different, Behavior is action. Orientation has to do with desires. Orientation may not be expressed in their behaviors. It's all clear, Ethereal. Behavior and orientation are different, and one can behave, sexually, in ways that do not match one's orientation.



As was yours.

Irrelevant. Sex is an option, and it is sometimes used. You can neither deny that the possibility exists, nor that the behavior occurs. Just because there are other possibilities, does not mean that this possibility would not be chosen.

Here is some information. First, by the US Human Rights Watch:
Another article that describes sexual orientation vs. sexual behavior is here:
The best study on this issue was done by Wooden and Parker (1