where are you on the kinsey scale?

[Nimitz]

from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale


The Kinsey scale attempts to measure sexual orientation, from 0 (exclusively heterosexual) to 6 (exclusively homosexual). In the Kinsey Reports, an additional grade was used for asexuality. It was first published in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) by Alfred Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy and others, and was also prominent in the complementary work Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

where are you on the scale right now?
from what i understand people can change and you are not always the same place on the scale
as you get older you may go up or down as you start to figure out what you like and do not like

[wisp]

what difference does a persons sexual orintation make on a gaming forum pray tell?Straight or gay makes no difference to me , its what we can learn from each other that one should look at not who they sleep with

[Gldm]

what difference does a persons sexual orintation make on a gaming forum pray tell?Straight or gay makes no difference to me , its what we can learn from each other that one should look at not who they sleep with

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken this forum for Gaming Discussion. This is Off-Topic Discussion.


Anyway, 3! :P


/wonders who the other 3 is

[wisp]

I'm sorry, you must have mistaken this forum for Gaming Discussion. This is Off-Topic Discussion.


Anyway, 3! :P


/wonders who the other 3 is


ok sorry this of a off topic Discussion you are right but still think that it is a stupid poll and has no place on the NAG forum either on or of topic,sexuality and religion should be left well alone only causes major flamewars:)

[Nimitz]

what difference does a persons sexual orintation make on a gaming forum pray tell?Straight or gay makes no difference to me , its what we can learn from each other that one should look at not who they sleep with

i find it an interesting question to ask

it sounds like you are uncomfortable with the question

sexual orientation does not make any difference on a gaming forum but Gldm already said this is Off-Topic and not Gaming Discussion

if straight or gay makes no difference to you then you can ignore this topic as it does not concern you

[Miktar]

ok sorry this of a off topic Discussion you are right but still think that it is a stupid poll and has no place on the NAG forum either on or of topic,sexuality and religion should be left well alone only causes major flamewars:)

I think it's a rather good topic, and maintain that sexuality and religion will not cause a flamewar on my forums.

Wisp, it sounds like you're adverse to the topic - if so, that's fine; but you cannot come in here and tell other people what they can or cannot post based entirely on your own preferences.

As Nimitz said - if you are uncomfortable with the topic or feel it does not concern you, then it does not concern you and you should really not come in here the preach.

[wisp]

i find it an interesting question to ask

it sounds like you are uncomfortable with the question

sexual orientation does not make any difference on a gaming forum but Gldm already said this is Off-Topic and not Gaming Discussion

if straight or gay makes no difference to you then you can ignore this topic as it does not concern you

I am not uncomfortable with the question i am very sure of my sexuality just think that the subjects will cause yet another arguement,but hey if it turns you on to know about other peoples sexual preference, then enjoy

[echo]

Nice topic. I voted Exclusively heterosexual. I think topics like this help people to be more open minded, but seeing as what has happened in the past on the nag forums, I understand wisp's point.

[Nimitz]

I am not uncomfortable with the question i am very sure of my sexuality just think that the subjects will cause yet another arguement,but hey if it turns you on to know about other peoples sexual preference, then enjoy

it does not turn me on to know about other peoples sexual preferences
the poll is anonymous after all, i cannot see who has voted what

why are you getting so angry about this?

it is an honest question and i feel echo got it right, this is about helping people be more open-minded

i do not feel this subject will cause an argument or flame war except perhaps if you wish to press this issue

[Miktar]

wisp - wtf dude? Just drop it already. You've already said you think this is a stupid poll, just let it go and go post in another thread. Although I feel your reasoning is flawed, nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

[wisp]

@ Miktar i wasn't preaching i was questioning..but whatever..and religion has caused problem before i.e Infinity blue vs Chevron
@ Nimitz..last thing i want is flamewar and i will not comment on this subject again
enjoy your poll

[Nimitz]

thank you

i'm sorry you could not participate

[Miktar]

@wisp - that problem was resolved because people sorted out their differences

[GeometriX]

Anyway, getting back to this topic, which I find rather interesting.

I guess I'm a 1. I consider myself heterosexual, and would only ever have physical relations with a woman. But hey - I can't say I don't feel complimented when I notice a gay guy checking me out. And I'm 99% sure most straight guys (bar a few fanatical nut jobs) feel the same way - everyone likes to feel good about themselves.

Funny when you start thinking about it.

Oh, and I think Queer as Folk is perhaps one of the most engaging drama series around. Certain scenes just get a bit much for the average straight guy.

[Garson007]

Mmm... Liek (sic), isn't there normally a quiz attached or something, to guide you to the right answer? Anyways I'll vote, but I've been rather bad in judging myself in the past.

Edit: Zomg, two asexuals (so far)? I always knew gamers were too interested in gaming. :P

[Chevron]

I can't say I don't feel complimented when I notice a gay guy checking me out.

What would you do if some gay guy pinched your butt?

[Miktar]

I would guess he'd understand the compliment, but tell the gay guy that his bread isn't buttered that way, and then the gay guy would concede the point.

[GeometriX]

Well, yeah. Once you get the idea that not all gay guys are out to jump your bones, and feel secure with your own sexuality, incidents like that are about as devastating as running out of Corn Flakes.

[Miktar]

Well, yeah. Once you get the idea that not all gay guys are out to jump your bones, and feel secure with your own sexuality, incidents like that are about as devastating as running out of Corn Flakes.

QFE! I love you.

[GeometriX]

Much love <3

[Antharias]

lol. It is just the typical male ego that makes the guy think that even a gay guy will want to have sex with them.

[Chronic]

i'm a 3/2 :)

I like my men, but no one kisses better than a woman!

[Chronic]

Well, yeah. Once you get the idea that not all gay guys are out to jump your bones, and feel secure with your own sexuality, incidents like that are about as devastating as running out of Corn Flakes.

BWHAHAH <3 <3

i have to admit when a gay guy hits on the guy i am with i think "woot, i got once GOOD LOOKING man"

and when a chick hits on me, i usually play it out :) nothing scores u more free tots at a club than u kissing a girl :P

[Nimue]

I love men, they are just overall yummy, hansom and sexy. Unfortunately they are a dying breed.

The thought of kissing a girl has crossed my mind, making me a 0-1, I guess.

[Miktar]

Men are a dying breed? What?

[PloPshoP]

Men are a dying breed? What?

Am I doomed?
100% women only, thank you very much.

[Nimue]

Yup, men have become worried about their looks and the way their hair is styled, cooking, pink T-shirts, wearing clothes male models wear. It's all about being the best metro-sexual male you can be. What happened to the man being the strong leader and taking charge?

It is not uncommon to hear of men staying home to look after the children. I would not want my husband to be a stay-at-home-dad.

[Gambit]

@ Nimue that is quite a big generalization you are making their. I don't know what your situation is/was but saying something like that is the main reason it is such a mission to get a girl, you know they have these preconceived ideas about men so they assume all of us are the same.

Good to see you back on the forums. (Or were you just using another nic?)

[Kensei]

Hmm, I think I am pre-dominantly hetrosexual... based on various factors :D

I think that a person is beautiful regardless of gender, like the Queen from 300 ;) Also hanging around guys most of the time tends to make me have to give an opinion on females and if they are hot or not.

Twas an interesting experience when I was hit on by a gay - pity she was so 'gay' that she is likely to turn straight... if that makes sense

[Nimue]

Yea I know I’m generalizing horrible, (personal experiences ruined me so), the general man probably don't deserve it, accept for the ones I know. (Die all you gutless men!!)

[Nimitz]

Yup, men have become worried about their looks and the way their hair is styled, cooking, pink T-shirts, wearing clothes male models wear. It's all about being the best metro-sexual male you can be. What happened to the man being the strong leader and taking charge?

It is not uncommon to hear of men staying home to look after the children. I would not want my husband to be a stay-at-home-dad.

it sounds like your own personal experiences are tinting your view

1. i do not feel it wrong for a man to be a stay-at-home dad
2. nothing wrong with a man staying home to take care of the children
3. i believe only a small percentage of males are into the metrosexual thing and that it varies from region to region as well as city to city

all these factors still do not indicate that the 'male' is dying out only that you are experiencing a specific set of circumstances

my advice would be to get out more

[Azimuth]

Uh, excuse me. I most certainly do not want - nor need - a man to "take charge" of me. Nuh-uh. No way.

And 'grats to Geometrix for being so fabulous.

[GeometriX]

*High five*

Interesting numbers coming up though, I must admit.

[Miktar]

I would like to reiterate that even I, as an admin, cannot see who has voted what option - so don't be afraid to vote for fear of someone knowing.

[Gldm]

I would like to reiterate that even I, as an admin, cannot see who has voted what option - so don't be afraid to vote for fear of someone knowing.

And I'm sure everyone's wondering what you picked since 6 = 0 at this point. ;)

[Miktar]

I'm a 3,4,5 depending on the weather.

[Gazza_N]

*High five*

Interesting numbers coming up though, I must admit.

QFT. I find polls like this one fascinating.

I sit at 0 on the scale. How utterly unremarkable.

[MrDeVil_909]

What exactly is 'incidentally homosexual?' Having never had a homosexual 'incident' worth mentioning I guess I'm a 0. I spent a lot of time around gay people when I lived and worked in Durban, I worked at Beanbag Bohemia and had many opportunities to explore the possibilities, but had no inclination to do so. I'm not super sexy or anything, but gays (like straight men) don't have very high standards when drunk or high. I know I'm straight because I have never had a fantasy about a man.

I have no objection to being hit on by a man, hey I used to flirt my ..er... ass off to get tips ;) And it gets you free drinks at 3-30 (RIP) I know what women feel like in straight clubs ;).

I also don't believe that your sexual orientation is something that really changes. I believe that the brain is hard-wired to be the way it is. Maybe people in the 2-5 ranges are more inclined towards experimentation and so their position on the scale would appear to change.

@ Nimue and that debate: I see what Nimue is saying, there are all these bull**** messages in the media about men getting in touch with their feminine sides and being all metrosexual. But I think many women have gotten sick of it and also men are tired of trying to be what they aren't. But men may try it on you under the impression that it is what you want.

[dammit]

I know I'm straight because I have never had a fantasy about a man.


Fantasies have little to do with it. You may fantasize about being with a person of the same sex and yet still be very much hetrosexual. One may also fantasize about a person from the opposite sex but be very much homosexual. In your head you can try out different possiblities without leaving any comfort zone or being in a "real" situation that you wouldn't be comfortable with.

[Chevron]

Uh, excuse me. I most certainly do not want - nor need - a man to "take charge" of me. Nuh-uh. No way.


You and I have had a similar male/female generalization chat before.

I was just wondering why you feel the way you do. Are you so insecure that you have to prove to yourself that you're independent or were you in a situation in your past where a man let you down or put you down so that now you feel you need to prove to the world that you're your own person?

[MrDeVil_909]

@ dammit: Yes, having a fantasy about a man doesn't make you gay, but never having one suggests strongly that you are not. :)

[Azimuth]

You and I have had a similar male/female generalization chat before.

I was just wondering why you feel the way you do. Are you so insecure that you have to prove to yourself that you're independent or were you in a situation in your past where a man let you down or put you down so that now you feel you need to prove to the world that you're your own person?

Erm. I'm just for equality. Duh. Letting someone "take charge" of me would plonk me on a lower rung. And why should I stand for that?

It's not about some bad experience in the past (I've not had one), but simply that I don't believe men are more important or should have any more authority than women. I don't boss people around, and I won't tolerate being bossed around either.

[Chevron]

@ Azimuth

So what are your thoughts on chivalry?
Do you take it as a sign of respect(I love it that he pulls out my chair for at the restaurant) or not (I'm not paralyzed I can do it myself)?

[GeometriX]

You and I have had a similar male/female generalization chat before.

I was just wondering why you feel the way you do. Are you so insecure that you have to prove to yourself that you're independent or were you in a situation in your past where a man let you down or put you down so that now you feel you need to prove to the world that you're your own person?
Wow, I didn't realise people still thought like that. I think the biggest problem here is perception. You perceive Azimuth's reaction to be out of the ordinary - and showing insecurity, and thus assume she has something to prove, or whatever. However, with the way the world is (somewhat less retarded than when the opinions of man and woman were first crafted, I'd like to think), her reaction is completely ordinary, so I can't really see why anyone would get jumpy about it.

I vote that Nimue and Chevron should get together, their opinions on the roles of men and women in society seem congruent.

[Azimuth]

Chevron, I'm not some sort of FemiNazi. I don't expect men to open doors or anything for me, but I'm not going to pitch a DEFCON 1 hissy-fit if someone does.

And thank you, Geometrix. You get it.

[Garson007]

I find it hard to believe that I could possibly be the gayest man on this board... Yet I'm the only 5 and no 6 yet? Where's the love? *sobs*

[MrDeVil_909]

I find it hard to believe that I could possibly be the gayest man on this board... Yet I'm the only 5 and no 6 yet? Where's the love? *sobs*

Well either, as a gay gamer you are unique. Or the others are playing Counterstrike going OMG!!! ***, LOLOLOL.

Either way, you're fabulous ;)

[Garson007]

Lol. I'm not -that- gay. The gayest word I use is probably gay. :P

[Nimue]

@ Nimue and that debate: I see what Nimue is saying, there are all these bull**** messages in the media about men getting in touch with their feminine sides and being all metrosexual. But I think many women have gotten sick of it and also men are tired of trying to be what they aren't. But men may try it on you under the impression that it is what you want.

*Nimue turns all teary eyed* I... I don't know what to say....I love you

That is exactly what I was getting at.

@Azimuth, I think you misunderstood me a bit. I don't believe the man or any person for that matter should "take charge of you" but I do believe the man and woman has some very specific roles to play in a relationship, to obtain that 50/50 equilibrium. For example: I would like it if the guy made the first move, and one thats not afraid of spiders. I don't believe we as woman should be limited in any way to not pay the bill or ask a guy out if we feel like it. But I would like to have a man that makes me feel safe, and can take the lead.

[Miktar]

Nice to see feminism is alive and well. You go girl. Find yourself a man who can make you feel like a woman.

[dammit]

I do believe the man and woman has some very specific roles to play in a relationship, to obtain that 50/50 equilibrium.

And in the best relationship, the specific roles will not necessarily be those defined by society but rather those that work for the two people as individuals and as a couple. Some relationships work where the woman is more "masculine" than the man and vice versa simply because they're each happy in the own roles and the roles don't clash...

[Miktar]

I do believe the man and woman has some very specific roles to play in a relationship, to obtain that 50/50 equilibrium

I never would have thought people still think that way. How positively medieval. Next you're going to tell me that for child-rearing, there MUST be a mother and a father.

[Gldm]

And in the best relationship, the specific roles will not necessarily be those defined by society but rather those that work for the two people as individuals and as a couple. Some relationships work where the woman is more "masculine" than the man and vice versa simply because they're each happy in the own roles and the roles don't clash...

I find it's nice when the roles are flexible, kinda like the number two. ;)

[kHayne]

Well, call me medieval, but I have to agree with Nim. But it's all about opinions and *******s anyway, amirite?

[Nimue]

@ Miktar: Nope, you don't NEED a mother AND a father to rear a child, but it sure makes things easier. Most things work better if all the parts are there and working in the right way.

But hey, if you need a woman to be the man in your life, go for it. (please note: this was meant to be a light hearted remark and not meant to seriously offend anyone)

[Miktar]

Well, call me medieval, but I have to agree with Nim. But it's all about opinions and *******s anyway, amirite?

Do you even have a girlfriend? Have you even considered marriage?

[Miktar]

@ Miktar: Nope, you don't NEED a mother AND a father to rear a child, but it sure makes things easier. Most things work better if all the parts are there and working in the right way.

But hey, if you need a woman to be the man in your life, go for it. (please note: this was meant to be a light hearted remark and not meant to seriously offend anyone)

None taken, considering I'm already married to a dude. :P

[Nimue]

Hahahahaha

@Miktar: That really made me laugh out loud. (The people are staring at me now.)

[Nimitz]

it seems many people are taught to think of rellationships a specific way instead of approaching them with an open mind

for example: the idea that monogamy is the "normal" thing when nature has proves time and again that monogamy is both bad for rearing kids as well as bad for passing on genetic information

but to question monogamy or to question what society tells us is "right" seems to be met with conflict regardless of how level-headed the discussion is

many people do not find happiness in their lives and relationships because they try to fit themselves into the shapes set by society instead of trying a variety of things to see what works best for them and their partner or partners

[Miktar]

Hahahahaha

@Miktar: That really made me laugh out loud. (The people are staring at me now.)

Say hello to Gldm, my husband. He tends to be quite vocal around these parts too.

[wisp]

Say hello to Gldm, my husband. He tends to be quite vocal around these parts too.


i love both you guys :)

[Nimue]

it seems many people are taught to think of rellationships a specific way instead of approaching them with an open mind

for example: the idea that monogamy is the "normal" thing when nature has proves time and again that monogamy is both bad for rearing kids as well as bad for passing on genetic information

but to question monogamy or to question what society tells us is "right" seems to be met with conflict regardless of how level-headed the discussion is

many people do not find happiness in their lives and relationships because they try to fit themselves into the shapes set by society instead of trying a variety of things to see what works best for them and their partner or partners

Thats just the thing, its not Normal anymore for a child to have both a father and a mother living under the same roof. Society has become all about single parents and single-sex relationships (I'm not condemning any of this). People frown upon you if you say the man and woman have a specific part to play in a relationship. Who is it really that doesn't have the open mind?

[Miktar]

"Society has become all about single parents and single-sex relationships "

Fallacy, sorry. You're generalizing too broadly there, and I happen to disagree that "Society" has become all about single parents. Yes, a lot of single parenting exists out of warinesses, usually related to the economy and work, but not due to choice.

You are confusing two separate issues here and assigning motivations erroneously.

[Nimue]

My bad. Anyway, I don't really know enough about this subject to really have a solid (fact based) point of view.

[Miktar]

It's fine, I don't think you're being stupid or anything - just that perhaps your viewpoints are based on too narrow a dataset.

After all, I think your view of parenting and relationships is probably limited to white, middle-upperclass and possibly only local.

In Mexico, Korea and China the situation would look very differently, I think you would agree, because over there it's a whole different set of conditions and cultural influences. For example, in China it's not uncommon for kids to be raised by multiple mothers while the fathers are off at work - which is perfectly acceptable and has proven to be very beneficial for child rearing.

In fact, a recent study proved that the almost optimal situation is for a child to have multiple mothers and NO fathers whatsoever, that once the father has 'done the deed' they must exit the picture entirely. I can get the name of the book for you if you want.

[Gambit]

"...that once the father has 'done the deed' they must exit the picture entirely."

@ Miktar I think your talking about a show on Animal Planet. (LOL)

[Nimue]

Yea, most of my opinions are based purely on my own experiences. I tend to find everything interesting but not enough to do some real research on the subject. I'd like to read the book though.

[Miktar]

The book: http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Nature-Maternal-Instincts-Species/dp/0345408934

Here is what a friend told me, and how he introduced me to the book:


It seems, or it is claimed, that in the early 90's 30 scientists from different fields met in a conference that they wanted no publicity for.

They'd been comparing findings.

After the conference, they all decided, save one, to sit on their research because, they were simply afraid of public opinions of it.

One, Sarah Hardy, decided to go ahead and continue, and has published a book.

Now, what could have been so terrible that that many people agreed to hide their findings?

Here's the brutal but basically accurate summary:

Human females are, by evolution, codependent mothers who function best physically and psychologically when rearing offspring in a group. Isolated family units with a single male involved can trigger instincts that cause both the male and mother to harm the children and/or neglect them. The nuclear family may be a terrible delusion that, more than an arbitrary social choice, is actually harmful.

In human societies, the "granny" figure may be a response to the instinct for multiple "mothers" to rear offspring and the frequent hostility that such "grandparent co-mothers" can feel towards the biological mother, might be an instinctive reaction to a feeling that the single mother is a danger to the child if left alone.

Given that the scientists were Americans meeting in the US, they had good reason to be concerned. America is founded on many fundamental social precepts that are taken as articles of faith as being the ideal human condition and model for the rest of the world. The Nuclear Family is, by perhaps a majority of the population, seen as the perfect social unit.

And more, there's a tremendous amount of belief that any threat to breaking up the Nuclear Family model will result in the destruction of society.

One of the big problems with the structure of American society and its religious / social underpinning, is the role that men and women each have in it. To sorta of simplify it ->

The men want the power and the feeling of control, but the truth is that the /women/ are their facilitators. The women feel most happy when they believe that they're only giving the men the illusion of power and control and they really hold the reins. This particular research is pariah, since,

The women are extraordinarily tense over their base of power and this could be seen as taking part of it away from them, which in turn, leaves them at a disadvantage with the males. The very suggestion of this paradigm probably would cause shrieking insanity among many women here.

And such a strong reaction, precisely because it pokes at their core insecurities; the whole situation of the women imagining they are the secret masters of the men, is in itself, a lie they have devised to feel good about being treated as baby machines for aggressive man monkies.

[Gldm]

The whole "nuclear family" concept is rather flawed. It was a short-term solution that worked well for what it was designed for, farming. The agricultural revolution suddenly meant *where* you lived was important, instead of just following wherever the animals you were hunting went. This meant control of land was an issue, and thus succession of control from one generation to another. Fathers suddenly had an interest in knowing their kids were really theirs, instead of them being sort of "community property" as they were in many ancient societies. This situation isn't the original natural state, it's a response to a technological change, namely the ability to cultivate crops for food.

The problem is it doesn't fit modern society quite so well anymore. As people moved from sunup to sundown labor on farms to more varied tasks in cities, things changed. Among them were social pressures, but a lot of the previous structure was around at a time when things were "hard coded" by laws and customs, since fixed farms also led to fixed houses, which led to the development of government, starting with city states. When a lot of these laws were written down, the whole 1 man + 1 woman + kids things was a pretty optimal and desired solution at the time, as it produced the most food per person (a group of 4 would produce less than 2 groups of 2 due to limits of what a given area of land could support). This was important because more food = more population = bigger army = better defense = more land under control = more food. A lot of effort was made to maximize population growth, sometimes in the form of religious rules such as prohibition of masturbation or homosexuality. This accompanied rules to reduce deaths like prohibiting certain foods that had a high chance of causing sickness (pork, shellfish). Eventually as the societies grew a lot of these got codified into laws.

So, the laws and customs became rigid but cities rapidly grew and progressed along with technology. Technological advances from industrialization meant only a small fraction of the population had to farm to support the rest. You can see some of the effect of this change in the number of overweight people. The cultivation of wheat and invention of bread was a huge triumph, as it's a fairly durable food (it doesn't go bad in a day without refrigeration unlike meat) with a very high energy density. The kind of energy density you need if you're going to spend 12 hours a day plus out in the sun working the field. But put someone behind a desk and that demand isn't there, but the three meal a day and high carbohydrate pattern was as rigidly ingrained as the social mores.

Farming is now a minority occupation and most people born in cities rarely even see a farm let alone work on one. A dispersed population is no longer an economic benefit, it's a hindrance. People can pool resources easier (utilities, rent etc) in larger groups, and kids are often more of a social and economic burden (less time, higher cost) than an insurance of passing wealth on, since few people have an estate to pass them anyway. With more people in closer quarters and the pressures removed or reversed, you get a lot of "moral decay" where people start going against the "traditional" system. Because it's no longer helpful to them, it's a hindrance. Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise that the original system of more casual groups is showing signs of reestablishing itself.

[dislekcia]

Personally, any child not raised by my dad is at a disadvantage... Of course, I'm biased and brainwashed by a culture of learning how to learn and fascination with the world.

Also, I totally agree that the common perception of the nuclear family is not a sustainable model... Just look at all the "model" families you know personally: Chances are that they're far larger than the immediate family, with a wide-ranging network of supporting relatives with very close bonds between them. This is especially true of the multi-generational super-successful high-powered US families, they're more like dynasties with strongly reinforced family bonds than simple, nuclear families.

-D

[kHayne]

Do you even have a girlfriend? Have you even considered marriage?

(a)not at the moment and (b) nope. But monogamy is mos de facto, amirite Mr Discovery Channel?
Wow, to be lectured by an alternate lifestyler on morality and relationship standards.
Love the intarbutts sometimes.

[Miktar]

(a)not at the moment and (b) nope. But monogamy is mos de facto, amirite Mr Discovery Channel?
Wow, to be lectured by an alternate lifestyler on morality and relationship standards.
Love the intarbutts sometimes.

Back off on the attitude. I wasn't attacking you, I was asking out of interest. I couldn't understand where your viewpoints were coming from.

What's with calling me Mr. Discovery Channel?

And I'm not lecturing you on morality and relationship standards. I never even considered lecturing you on it. This is a discussion, and once again you're getting on a high horse in response to being queried on your own standings.

I get the hint, and will exclude you from this kind of discussion in the future.

[Q-Man]

I believe that every person on earth has the capacity to fall in love with either sex, but because of society blah blah blah blah blah. Anyway, count me in from 2-5 (because it's another belief of mine that 'exclusively' one or the other doesn't really exist - but that is of course a personal belief) - so I'd go for a 3?

Though I don't really like putting numbers or labels to things, but hey. Shag who you want die happy gogogogo!

[MrDeVil_909]

I believe that every person on earth has the capacity to fall in love with either sex, but because of society blah blah blah blah blah.

I disagree, my heterosexuality has nothing to do with society and has everything to do with the fact that I have never met or seen a man I'd like to shag. As I said in my post above, I believe that most if not all of your orientation is hardwired from the womb.

@ Miktar: in kHaynes defense (never thought I'd say that) but your question did seem somewhat confrontational and a defensive response is understandable.

[Q-Man]

I disagree, my heterosexuality has nothing to do with society and has everything to do with the fact that I have never met or seen a man I'd like to shag. As I said in my post above, I believe that most if not all of your orientation is hardwired from the womb.


Mmmm, I'm tempted to get philosophical here about the whole "hard-wired at birth" theory, but I'll just avoid it. You have your views, I have mine - I'm more prone to follow tabula rasa, because I believe (that is to say, in my opinion) that society is the fore-runner in how we as individuals turn out. Of course, nothing has one answer and there is no one theory applicable to everyone. So there you go.

[Miktar]

@MrDeVil_909: Understandable, but to be fair I wasn't going to sit here and have him start talking with a sense of authority about a subject that he himself admits he has absolutely no experience in. That just seems really indignant.

This is a large topic, and already sits at 8 pages. I tend to get a little annoyed when people come in and say "I TOTALLY AGREE WITH PERSON X, HAW HAW" and then ignore everything else in the entire thread.

Yes, my tone could have been more conciliatory, you're right.

But I have yet to find a reason to make that concession.

Having giving it some thought:

What I should have done, is not asked if kHayne is involved or has ever considered making the oath, but rather to explain why he believes and agrees with what Nimue said, because I fail to understand how anyone could have such a rather archaic view.

It's not like I want him to suddenly see my side of the issue, I just want him to explain to me his side in a way that I can understand it, because it is alien and illogical to me to the point of being completely unintelligible.


I do believe the man and woman has some very specific roles to play in a relationship, to obtain that 50/50 equilibrium

That is the point I'm not understanding. The idea that a man and a woman have predefined specific roles to play in a relationship seems like Fisher-Price psychology to me, something you learn from television after watching too many sitcoms. I'm of the opinion that every single relationship is a specialized situation that cannot have predefined constructs enforced on it without causing actual damage to the parties involved. Human beings are incredibly complicated creatures just by themselves, throwing two together for mutual benefit, emotional support and often cohabitation only compounds the situation to the point where I simple cannot believe that there is a specific right way of approaching it that could be defined externally.

Also, the 50/50 equilibrium thing sounds like a Natural Fallacy - equilibrium is not always the ideal situation and it simple cannot work for all cases. Often in nature you also find unbalanced systems that thrive because they are unbalanced - but I'll refrain from calling in Nature as a witness lest I be called Mr. Discover Channel again, because that's the much easier approach instead of actually backing up an argument.

[Gen0cyde]

Mmmm, I'm tempted to get philosophical here about the whole "hard-wired at birth" theory, but I'll just avoid it. You have your views, I have mine - I'm more prone to follow tabula rasa, because I believe (that is to say, in my opinion) that society is the fore-runner in how we as individuals turn out. Of course, nothing has one answer and there is no one theory applicable to everyone. So there you go.

*Gen0 explains*
Q-man saw me and thought I was the sexiest thing EVA!
Right?

I voted 1. I love my girl friend I dont swing any other way but I have plenty of gay friends and I am pretty comftable giving them a hug if needed or telling them they look good Im sure I would even blush if they told me I looked good.

^^

[Miktar]

I voted 1. I love my girl friend I dont swing any other way but I have plenty of gay friends and I am pretty comftable giving them a hug if needed or telling them they look good Im sure I would even blush if they told me I looked good.^^

You are a rare breed, and I hope you have many babies to pass on your good genes - God knows humanity needs it.

[MrDeVil_909]

Mmmm, I'm tempted to get philosophical here about the whole "hard-wired at birth" theory, but I'll just avoid it. You have your views, I have mine - I'm more prone to follow tabula rasa, because I believe (that is to say, in my opinion) that society is the fore-runner in how we as individuals turn out. Of course, nothing has one answer and there is no one theory applicable to everyone. So there you go.

Please don't avoid it, discussion is fun.

I see what you are saying, but if society has such a strong effect then homosexuality would be less common. My 'hard-wired' theory comes also from many conversations with gays who said that given the choice they would be straight because of the difficulties they have faced, it isn't some simple lifestyle choice the religious fundamentalists seem to believe.

[kHayne]

Nag forums are going to hell if I'm getting sympathy from some of the other forum users, that's for sure.

@M. Yes. Instead of dropping a 'olol u dont haz a gurlfiend HAHA stfu' lolpwnt bomb because you felt slighted by a contradictory opinion, you could perhaps have taken a minute out of your busy schedule to think the response over. I'll agree however that I probably should have done the same.

Sure, some of us do fail at finding love. Either that or some of us simply won't settle for second best. Maybe because we feel we're worth more than that. Or destiny. ****, I don't know. Maybe my sparkling personality is too much to bear.

Either way, arguing that because I lack experience in a certain situation disqualifies me from posing thought on the subject, lacks merit I feel. I know I don't like geting ****ed in the ass for example, and that's without ever having experienced it. On this specific topic, yes i believe males have specifically male roles to play in a relationship (father, protector, provider), and females specifically female (mother, lover, housekeeping). Partly because it's traditional and proven to work, and partly because it's biological.
Probably where people get ornery is their failure to realise that any and all gender specific roles are equally important and contributive towards a stable home and family.

[Miktar]

I don't believe in the hard-wired idea because it just isn't natural to be hard-wired to a specific gender persuasion. That's not to say that impressions can't be so strong that it may appear hard-wired and there is nothing *wrong* with someone knowing what they want and sticking with it.

But on a fundamental level, sexual preference is not hard-wired. It is not genetically positive to be hard-wired that way. Babies are not born gay or straight, sexuality is something that develops over time (as people who read the Kinsey report might come to realize).

[Miktar]

@M. Yes. Instead of dropping a 'olol u dont haz a gurlfiend HAHA stfu'

That was not my tone. I did not rub it in your face that you are single, I don't even consider it a negative. Stop twisting this around to suit your needs.


lolpwnt bomb because you felt slighted by a contradictory opinion,

I did not feel slighted by the opinion, but rather that of the opinion giver. But that was my mistake, as I have already admitted.


you could perhaps have taken a minute out of your busy schedule to think the response over. I'll agree however that I probably should have done the same.

We can agree there. I should have taken it slower, and for that I'm sorry.


Sure, some of us do fail at finding love. Either that or some of us simply won't settle for second best. Maybe because we feel we're worth more than that. Or destiny. ****, I don't know. Maybe my sparkling personality is too much to bear.

I get that, but that's not what I was asking. I wanted to know why you agreeed with Nimue's view that a relationship needs a 50/50 split of male/female balance in responsabilities and interactions.


Either way, arguing that because I lack experience in a certain situation disqualifies me from posing thought on the subject. I know I don't like geting ****ed in the ass for example, and that's without ever having experienced it.

That works both ways, ironically. I can recall several times you told me to not dare comment on World of Warcraft because you assumed I did not play or participate in World of Warcraft.

I don't want to make this an argument, but that right there is pure Grade A "hypocritical".

You tell me I cannot comment on things I lack experience in.
You tell me I should not tell you that you cannot comment on things you lack experience in.

Excuse me?

But yes - I know that you think that even without getting butt****ed that you don't like it, but in reality that's not true, is it? You *think* you won't like it. It's not that you *don't* like it, you have never *done* it. You are assuming you won't, and that is 100% valid and fair - but don't confuse the issue.

[kHayne]

Well, theres a league of distance between dallying in a computer game, and Real Life Stuff. In terms of seriasnis anyway. But yes, perhaps that was being hypocritical. Point conceded.

However, regarding your last point. On this, I'm afraid I remain pretty stuck in the mud. Experienced or no. In terms of family values, I remain strongly conservative and traditionalist.
No, I won't elucidate as to why, because my reasons are quite personal.

[Gldm]

I know I don't like geting ****ed in the ass for example, and that's without ever having experienced it.

I doubt your mental simulation of the experience and the actual one are similar. So I find it hard to believe it's something you know in the absolute sense with zero experience.


Partly because it's traditional and proven to work,

Yet we have evidence other systems that were in use for FAR longer periods of time (tens of thousands of years vs hundreds) were proven to work. Which one is "traditional" then? Isn't it possible the conditions that changed to create the current system have changed again? In which case even if it's "proven" to work, it may not work in the new environment.


and partly because it's biological.

Proof pls.

[kHayne]

Proof pls.
Er. Men can't lactate?

[Gldm]

Er. Men can't lactate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation

DENIED!


Hehe. In all seriousness though, one of the advances brought on during the development of what most people would call the "traditional" system, was the reduced dependence on breastfeeding. With other sources like cow's milk available, women were more free to be away from their children, which I would hypothesize is part of the reason for the stricter controls on them in the system. If anything the biological constraints dictating their role would be less, not greater, so I suspect artificial ones were introduced. Other sources for feeding infants was probably critical to the agricultural revolution, since if all the women were separated instead of being grouped they couldn't share breastfeeding duties in the case that one underproduced or didn't produce at all.

I don't want to make it look like I'm claiming the traditional system is inferior, rather my argument is that it was designed to maximize advantage in conditions that either have changed or are in the process of changing, and thus we may need to reevaluate how the family works to cope properly.

[Miktar]

However, regarding your last point. On this, I'm afraid I remain pretty stuck in the mud. Experienced or no. In terms of family values, I remain strongly conservative and traditionalist. No, I won't elucidate as to why, because my reasons are quite personal.

Okay. If it's personal, then it's untouchable hence this discussion can't really go any further between you and I. Your 2c is now covered in gold and cannot be questioned. :/

[Chevron]

@miktar

Nurture doesn't always beat nature. I once saw this documentary where this child was born with an under developed penis. The doctors recommended a operation that would turn the penis into a vagina. The parents agreed and proceeded to raise a girl. Throughout the child's life it was plagued with identity issues and eventually ran away from home. There's a lot more to this nature vs nurture debate than what meets the eye.

[MrDeVil_909]

I'd actually forgotten that show, they picked up actual physiological differences in male and female brains, and some of the commonalities between female and homosexual brains. If I remember correctly, it was years ago, it was an accident during circumcision.

[brazed]

it was an accident during circumcision.

What? Cutting some skin off your penis makes you gay? Damn, I never would have thought that.

;)

[Chevron]

Not it wasn't. I think i'd remember the difference between "accidental circumcision" and "under developed penis".

Well that just means we saw different shows that believes that nature beats nurture.

Googling "nature vs nurture" is really interesting.

[dammit]

@miktar

Nurture doesn't always beat nature. I once saw this documentary where this child was born with an under developed penis. The doctors recommended a operation that would turn the penis into a vagina. The parents agreed and proceeded to raise a girl. Throughout the child's life it was plagued with identity issues and eventually ran away from home. There's a lot more to this nature vs nurture debate than what meets the eye.

This is a common problem with those who are born hermaphradites (having both sexual organs) and their parents/drs make the decision as to which sex they will become (often it is not the "right" one).

Anyway...adding my 2cents:


I don't like geting ****ed in the ass for example

I must agreed with Mik on this one: you don't know til you've tried. Also, some guys enjoy this form of sexual gratification but arent actually gay (this is because there is a P-spot, similar to the female G-spot, that can only be reached by this form of sexual activity.)



i believe males have specifically male roles to play in a relationship (father, protector, provider), and females specifically female (mother, lover, housekeeping).

I'm interested as to why the "father" does not fulfill a "lover" role in your opinion?





A lot of effort was made to maximize population growth, sometimes in the form of religious rules such as prohibition of masturbation or homosexuality. This accompanied rules to reduce deaths like prohibiting certain foods that had a high chance of causing sickness (pork, shellfish). Eventually as the societies grew a lot of these got codified into laws.

And the truth is out. I must admit I'd never thought of it from that angle.

The one problem I find with the argument that Miktar quoted was that more and more it is the males in the heterosexual relationships that want the family unit (as the *want* to play out the roles they believe they are *made* for) while the females are happy to do their own thing [this is my opinion from personal experience].

Also, I really feel degraded to be thought of as a "baby-making machine." Yeah sure, I understand the theory, and possibily agree, that women should raise the children in female only groups (like elephants). I know my own father was away a lot and I might be better for it but...

the idea of being used in a "wham, bam thank you maam" kinda way just feels ... icky

[Chevron]

What? Cutting some skin off your penis makes you gay? Damn, I never would have thought that.

;)

I know you're joking, but my point is even though they tried to raise it as a girl it still wanted girls. Thereby proving nature beats nurture.

[MrDeVil_909]

@ Chevron: Probably different programs with parallel research, so to me even more valid.

@ brazed: it was an extremely large piece of skin, basically ending at the scrotum, I don't know why they couldn't re-attach, it happened over 20 years ago, maybe it wasn't possible.

@ Miktar: Possibly the idea of flexible sexual orientation is the way you are wired? ;) You say inflexibility is unnatural, I won't be that judgmental, I just say that flexibility in unappealing.

[dislekcia]

I know you're joking, but my point is even though they tried to raise it as a girl it still wanted girls. Thereby proving nature beats nurture.

One case proving everything in as open a situation as mental/sexual development?

No. Your science... Is weak.

-D

[Azimuth]

On this specific topic, yes i believe males have specifically male roles to play in a relationship (father, protector, provider), and females specifically female (mother, lover, housekeeping). Partly because it's traditional and proven to work, and partly because it's biological.
Probably where people get ornery is their failure to realise that any and all gender specific roles are equally important and contributive towards a stable home and family.

I feel no biological urge to have kids or clean the house. Sorry.

[Garson007]

Mmm... so much to cover. Ok. I'll say one thing. Even though Gldm touched up on this earlier, I would like to make it clear to everyone that although we are animals (yes, you and me are mammal), we cannot assume that we can succeed in living the same way animals do. For this reason all arguments containing the fact that "animals do it", might be biologically written in our code, but is in no way a realistic approach to our lives.

Also, researching human behaviour and actually trying to compare the findings between groups of people is like trying to calculate the distance I'm sitting from the screen down to a nanometre with my eyes only. That said there might be some truth in such research, but just as much truth in the fact that it will rain tomorrow if 60&#37; chance was predicted.

Oh and Miktar, every time I post something now my eyes go blind, thank you. :P (User title)

[Chevron]

I feel no biological urge to have kids or clean the house. Sorry.

So that means you're a freak of nature. ;) only joking.

Actually I'm having problems with those urges at the moment. My girl is only 19 and already wants to get married and have kids. I feel so bad telling her it's too early.

[Miktar]

@miktar

Nurture doesn't always beat nature. I once saw this documentary where this child was born with an under developed penis. The doctors recommended a operation that would turn the penis into a vagina. The parents agreed and proceeded to raise a girl. Throughout the child's life it was plagued with identity issues and eventually ran away from home. There's a lot more to this nature vs nurture debate than what meets the eye.

I never said that there are no exceptions to the rule. You also happen to quote what I consider a rather remarkable and televised exception. I still maintain that gender is not as hardwired as people think, but that genetic carryover can have marked influence - but that still does not indicate hard-wired.

[Miktar]

A lot of good points, but I'm actually out of things to say on this matter. Nobody has raised anything I feel the need to rebut, and I've already said all I have to say.

[Chevron]

I never said that there are no exceptions to the rule. You also happen to quote what I consider a rather remarkable and televised exception. I still maintain that gender is not as hardwired as people think, but that genetic carryover can have marked influence - but that still does not indicate hard-wired.

Try googling "nature vs nurture" and you'll see it's not just one exception. I believe nature beats nurture. As someone else in this thread said some of their gay friends wish they were straight due to the difficulties they now face n society. If it really was just nurture there wouldn't have ever been any gay or lesbian people in the first place.

In those situations where nature messed up, nature sort of fixed itself on it's own. If you had three separate islands. One with 50 gay couples, one with 50 lesbian couples and one with 50 straight couples. In 200 years only one island would have any descendants.

[Kensei]

I feel no biological urge to have kids or clean the house. Sorry.

Neither do I, really ;) I kinda like my freedom and have no intention of settling down anytime soon. Raising a puppy is hard enough for me ;)

I do find it funny that when people think of the whole hetrosexual/homosexual thing they immediately attribute it to how people will 'do it' - like there is nothing more to a relationship than the physicial.

Come on people, there is more to loving someone that what you do in bed! You are effectively saying that people who can't do the physcial cannot truly love each other. The goal of being in a relationship does not have to be about passing on your genes to the next generation.

Am I making sense? Or did I read through the 11 pages worth of posts too quickly?

[Miktar]

Try googling "nature vs nurture" and you'll see it's not just one exception.

I am fully aware of the nature vs nurture argument. That doesn't mean I agree with it.


If it really was just nurture there wouldn't have ever been any gay or lesbian people in the first place.

That is the biggest load of bull**** I have ever heard.


In those situations where nature messed up, nature sort of fixed itself on it's own. If you had three separate islands. One with 50 gay couples, one with 50 lesbian couples and one with 50 straight couples. In 200 years only one island would have any descendants.

...

That is a beautifully constructed scenario that makes no sense and has absolutely no bearing on reality. I have no idea what you're trying to say there, other than one island would be fabulous, one would be the envy of every straight man on the planet and another would be overpopulated within the decade.

[dammit]

Neither do I, really ;) I kinda like my freedom and have no intention of settling down anytime soon. Raising a puppy is hard enough for me ;)

I do find it funny that when people think of the whole hetrosexual/homosexual thing they immediately attribute it to how people will 'do it' - like there is nothing more to a relationship than the physicial.

Come on people, there is more to loving someone that what you do in bed! You are effectively saying that people who can't do the physcial cannot truly love each other. The goal of being in a relationship does not have to be about passing on your genes to the next generation.

Am I making sense? Or did I read through the 11 pages worth of posts too quickly?

I agree! I think the biggest problem is that television, media ect protray relationships as only being based on the physical and this influences the idea most people have of relationships. Just think of any soap opera, sitcom, or even cartoon and how the relationship between the sexes is portrayed...

[Chevron]

If it really was just nurture there wouldn't have ever been any gay or lesbian people in the first place.



That is the biggest load of bull**** I have ever heard.


YOU said we aren't hard wired. If we aren't then it's upbringing that has the influence. So please show me parents who would bring their children up as homosexual.

[Miktar]

So please show me parents who would bring their children up as homosexual.

Please show me a child who's psychological make-up was entirely 100&#37; determined only by the influences of his or her parents.

You are narrowing this down far too much, and ignoring the much bigger picture here.

I could see how many parents enforce a heterosexual psychological disposition on their children, which is something I consider near-childabuse, but that is for another topic.

You make it sound like a child turns out exactly how a parent forces them to, disregarding the billions of other inputs that make up the eventual choices a child settles for.

We are not hard-wired sexually, that is something I firmly believe. I maintain that a child, as it grows into the framework of sentience it needs to survive in our reality, finds the choices that works best for him or her as an entity (what we "are", is another discussion). What makes an entity decide on those eventual choices, science has yet to nail down. There is firm evidence that "choice" does not happen inside the brain as a chemical reaction, but rather that once choice has been made, the brain fires up into an explosion of chemicals that create the frameworks needed to make that choice a reality.

That makes explaining why we chose what we do, rather difficult, as it may be happening on a plane of existence we are incapable of understanding right now. I know this is going to alienate me from how you may perceive reality, but then that is where we must diverge and if so: it would be where we start to be unable to relate to each other to such a degree that we cannot discuss these things anymore.

[Chevron]

Maybe it was still short sighted, but society as a whole still disproved of homosexuality. It's only recently the same sex marriages were made legal.

[Gldm]

I'd have to go with the nature side of the argument due to personal experience. I was already sexually active as a heterosexual before I started having an active interest in males. Which led to a lot of confusion, especially since in those days (around 1990) bisexuality was almost never heard of in public, it was either gay or straight.

It's probably a complex combination of both genetic bias and environment. But if I recall the studies done on the differences in brain structure showed the most difference in the hypothalamus, which is believed to still do pheromone processing from the vestigial VNO that humans still have but don't depend on nearly as much as animals with heat cycles. The fact that almost every other mammal species has shown real-world examples of homosexuality argues strongly for an inherent trait rather than learned behavior, or at least a trait that produces a significant bias.

However, our understanding of the brain and human behavior remains extremely limited, so we can't definitely say either the way things are is hard-coded in DNA or a blank slate formed by experience. Most likely there's a lot more complexity behind the curtain than either.

[Miktar]

Maybe it was still short sighted, but society as a whole still disproved of homosexuality. It's only recently the same sex marriages were made legal.

You are combining two issues there.

Same Sex Marriage is an entirely separate issue from how society feels about homosexuality, because it involves the religious impact and legality issues of what "Marriage" is. Many people who are okay with homosexuality don't like the idea of same sex marriage because of the perceived effects it has on the "institution" of *marriage*, and not what it means about a dude and a dude kissing.

Society as a "whole", has no real thoughts on the issue because it's only once you get into specific cultures and countries that you can find any kind of real definition. For example, society was just fine with homosexuality at multiple points in history (ancient Greece, for example, as well as most Turkish and more modern Greek society), and at other points in history society was less favorable towards homosexuality based on the political and social undercurrents of the time.

You cannot say "society as a whole disproves of homosexuality", because that is too grand a sweep of generalization that ignores cultural and societal norms outside your own environment.

There is more to the acceptance of homosexuality than just the Stonewall riots [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots].

As Gldm says, and something I agree with - the human creature itself seems to have equal parts capacity, by default, for having sexual interest in both male and female, but only the varied external influences of our reality combined with how "we" as an entity make our choices seems to narrow the eventual personality outcome down to a specific side - which is lately very much more enforced than I believe it should be, by external factors who believe in a "right" and "wrong" when it comes to sexual preference.

[dammit]

For example, society was just fine with homosexuality at multiple points in history (ancient Greece, for example, as well as most Turkish and more modern Greek society), and at other points in history society was less favorable towards homosexuality based on the political and social undercurrents of the time.


I cannot fail to mention that the Greek society believed that only men were rational (children, women and animals were all on the same level) and so you, as a male, could not expect to have a 'friendship' or 'relationship' with anyone except a male. Women were there to produce children. Men were there to enjoy eachothers company.

...I don't know about the Turks, but they probably had similar ideas.

[Miktar]

I cannot fail to mention that the Greek society believed that only men were rational (children, women and animals were all on the same level) and so you, as a male, could not expect to have a 'friendship' or 'relationship' with anyone except a male. Women were there to produce children. Men were there to enjoy eachothers company.

...I don't know about the Turks, but they probably had similar ideas.

Yes, I'm aware of that - I stressed multiple times that underlying cultural and social elements come into play and factor into defining the outlook of sexuality at the time.

However, it doesn't change my argument and what I put forth to Chevron.

[dammit]

Yes, I'm aware of that - I stressed multiple times that underlying cultural and social elements come into play and factor into defining the outlook of sexuality at the time.

However, it doesn't change my argument and what I put forth to Chevron.

Yes, i get that. I just wanted to mention the social conditions of that time for the people who might not know since it forms part of your argument

[Miktar]

Fair enough. I just figured most people have basic High-School history.

[dammit]

Fair enough. I just figured most people have basic High-School history.

Never assume.... 'makes an ass of u and me' :P

Also, what i remember from highschool is the south african history we were force fed mixed with, thankfully, the world wars history. I only know a little about the greeks from doing philosophy...

[revq]

I'm not going to jump in on the whole nature vs nurture debate, you guys seem to have all the views well covered. The thing I find interesting, is that almost no-one has mentioned bisexuality, it seems to devolve down to a binary set, homosexuality v heterosexuality with anything other than total heterosexual attitudes being labeled as homosexual, yet so far no one has voted for exclusively homosexual.

[dammit]

The thing I find interesting, is that almost no-one has mentioned bisexuality.

Please go and read the thread. Bisexuality has been mentioned. What would you like to add to what has been said about it?

[Miktar]

I'm not going to jump in on the whole nature vs nurture debate, you guys seem to have all the views well covered. The thing I find interesting, is that almost no-one has mentioned bisexuality, it seems to devolve down to a binary set, homosexuality v heterosexuality with anything other than total heterosexual attitudes being labeled as homosexual, yet so far no one has voted for exclusively homosexual.

Actually, I think the discussion started off myself mentioning that I believe humans are not hard-wired to one side, and that the human organism is inherently bisexual, and that people can move up and down the Kinsey scale depending on situation, circumstance or enviromental factors. Most people, however, to seem to find a niche and stick to what works for them - but I maintain that this does not prove that they lack the capacity to be anywhere on the scale, only that they themselves see no need to move around on it.

I think the only reason nobody has voted pure Homosexual on the poll, is more due to a lack of participants, and it is not really indicative of anything. There are, after all, very few people on this forum right now.

[revq]

I did say almost no-one, as far as I can see, only Gldm mentioned it, and that was on page 11. My observation was that this argument seems to be solely about totally straight versus totally gay and it just seems to me at least, to be a limited view of a very complex and expansive field.

[revq]

@Miktar - point conceded, my bad :P

[Miktar]

I did say almost no-one, as far as I can see, only Gldm mentioned it, and that was on page 11. My observation was that this argument seems to be solely about totally straight versus totally gay and it just seems to me at least, to be a limited view of a very complex and expansive field.

Nah, I just think that in the back-and-fourth between Chevron and I, somewhere it became about homosexual vs heterosexual only in the sense of what the two viewpoints represent, in context of how children are wired (or not wired) to decide/become their sexual orientation. I don't think it actually ever literally meant homosexual vs heterosexual, or at least, I don't see it that way.

I'm not quite sure how it went that way, I'd have to go re-read the entire last few pages of the thread and I really don't wanna. :P

[dammit]

To change the topic, just slightly, from what has been covered quite completely over the last several pages, I'm curious about those who consider themselves Asexual. Is it really possible that someone has no interest at all in any gender of person? Or is it more of a choice? Similiar to abstinence?

[Miktar]

I've noticed that asexuality is often more about a complete absence of a sexual drive, and not so much about being neutral towards either gender attraction.

I was involved with someone who now classifies themselves as asexual, but they are "gay" by classification to. He is interest in guys in terms of companions, but abstains from sex entirely.

I'd be curious to hear from those that voted Asexual, why they did so, in case they did it for reasons I've yet to notice.

[dammit]

I've noticed that asexuality is often more about a complete absence of a sexual drive, and not so much about being neutral towards either gender attraction.

I was involved with someone who now classifies themselves as asexual, but they are "gay" by classification to. He is interest in guys in terms of companions, but abstains from sex entirely.



Thanks for the reply. I really don't know much about this so I would also like to hear from those who voted asexual. Another question, though, is if they have no sex drive is that more of a chemical/hormone "issue" (for lack of a better word) ? And would chemical/hormone replacement change the asexual person to a 'sexual' person?

[Miktar]

To be honest, asexuality or abstinence from all sexual interactions are areas where my own knowledge falls woefully short. I can't even begin to guess why someone would abstain or have no interest in sexual interaction - I could guess chemical, or environmental, or mental reasons.. but it would truly be pure guesswork as I've done no research into it whatsoever (it scares me).

[.dB]

Yeah, I'm three.

[Miktar]

Yeah, I'm three.

But are you available?

[.dB]

But are you available?

Nah. goodgame'd.

[Miktar]

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/5627/21736880ya9.jpg

[dammit]

(it scares me).

Why? What about it scares you?

[Miktar]

Because I pride myself on being able to relate to things and people, so as to better understand them - but someone who has no sexual drive, urge or willfully abstains, is completely alien to me and I cannot fathom ever relating.

[Azimuth]

I've noticed that asexuality is often more about a complete absence of a sexual drive, and not so much about being neutral towards either gender attraction.

I was involved with someone who now classifies themselves as asexual, but they are "gay" by classification to. He is interest in guys in terms of companions, but abstains from sex entirely.


You've nailed it.

[dislekcia]

Lol, "Willfully abstains". Gotta love that context ;)

-D

[Shadowleech]

Wow, I browsed through some older forums and came across this one... and the poll results are interesting... where's all the gay gamers? :P

[TheLionsInnards]

Wow, I browsed through some older forums and came across this one... and the poll results are interesting... where's all the gay gamers? :P

Browsed is right, thanks to you resurrecting it I actually read it and found it very interesting. but if you had actually read it you would have seen that garson007, Miktar and Gldm are. Miktar you surprised me, your column a few months ago about women that have been edited to perfection had me beleiving you were straight, you learn something new on the forums every day!

On-Topic: I'm a 0.

[dammit]

Browsed is right, thanks to you resurrecting it I actually read it and found it very interesting. but if you had actually read it you would have seen that garson007, Miktar and Gldm are. Miktar you surprised me, your column a few months ago about women that have been edited to perfection had me beleiving you were straight, you learn something new on the forums every day!

On-Topic: I'm a 1.


May i ask, which column of Miktars u are referring to? I seemed to have missed that one...

[TheLionsInnards]

May i ask, which column of Miktars u are referring to? I seemed to have missed that one...

Will go find it...
Ah. "Pressing All Your Buttons"
Mik's meanderings April 2007.

The column was actually about how graphics are used to make up for crappy gameplay, and that we should look for average looking games that might surprise us, but I remembered the column differently at first ;)

On second thought that sounded boorish.
Also meant that I was a 0, and edited.

[BattleMoose]

I'm highly curious what people here think "incidentally homosexual" is, coz ill be damned if i know. ^^

That they look at a guy (or girl depending) and thought they looked hawt? Or that they would hit that, or maybe they did?

[TheLionsInnards]

I'm highly curious what people here think "incidentally homosexual" is, coz ill be damned if i know. ^^

That they look at a guy (or girl depending) and thought they looked hawt? Or that they would hit that, or maybe they did?

I'm sure that if they "hit " a person of the same sex they would rate higher than "incidentally". Probably a 3. I dunno, just guessing.

[Paradox]

Hmm, when I read this thread a while ago I thought I was a 2.

Well, then I saw Brian Molko.

:o Yeah, I'm a 3.

[NightTimeHornet]

Why are exclusively heterosexual people listed as zeros? Are we boring or something? :P I mean, who starts counting from zero? Zero is nothing. You only have something when it is more than zero. Damn psychologists. Now I have a complex.

I suppose that the term incidental homosexuality is self explanatory. This would be a spur of the moment thing, going with the flow if you will, and not a preplanned attempt (probably (insert drug of choice here) induced :P ).

[Thaumaturge]

A very interesting thread - I'm glad that it was dredged up, and reanimated to a terrible semblance of life. ^_^

As with some others, I find that I don't understand what is meant by "incidentally homosexual". When considering myself on a numbered scale, excluding the descriptions given above, I would consider myself to be somewhere near 1, which I describe as follows:

Only attracted to (i.e. turned on by) women, but capable of appreciating a male human form aesthetically, as well as recognising (I think) men that are likely to be thought attractive.


Why are exclusively heterosexual people listed as zeros? Are we boring or something? :P I mean, who starts counting from zero?

Programmers, for one. ;P

[Shadowleech]

Browsed is right, thanks to you resurrecting it I actually read it and found it very interesting. but if you had actually read it you would have seen that garson007, Miktar and Gldm are.


I actually read the thread and picked that up, I was referring to 'exclusively homosexual' guys... :) Surely I'm not the only one on these forums?

[Miktar]

Shadowleech, there was a person in this very thread who said the same thing, wondering if he's the only exclusively homosexual on these forums. Go try and see who it is, by reading the thread. (Hint: He has 'member' written under his nick in rainbow colours)

[Shadowleech]

I find it hard to believe that I could possibly be the gayest man on this board... Yet I'm the only 5 and no 6 yet? Where's the love? *sobs*

@Miktar - Ah yes, but he voted 5 and not 6... which means he's not the gayest man on this board anymore, but also not exclusively homosexual :D

[dammit]

I still want to know who the "Asexual" people are...

And i'm just wondering if someone voted "asexual" because they confused the definition of not wanting sex with not having had sex...?

[BattleMoose]

I am wondering if some of the younger users here voted asexual, whose feelings may currently be largely influenced by their age and may still be developing a sex drive?

[Miktar]

@Miktar - Ah yes, but he voted 5 and not 6... which means he's not the gayest man on this board anymore, but also not exclusively homosexual :D

Oh ****, you're right, sorry.

[Antimatter]

I am wondering if some of the younger users here voted asexual, whose feelings may currently be largely influenced by their age and may still be developing a sex drive?

I fail to see how that would happen. All I thought about through puberty was sex. Hell, its pretty much all I think about these days as well.

[cYn]

I still want to know who the "Asexual" people are...

And i'm just wondering if someone voted "asexual" because they confused the definition of not wanting sex with not having had sex...?

I'm pretty sure there are a few people who have negative associations to sex and have subsequently removed it from their list of things to do or just arent all that compelled to partake. Unfortunately asexual people unlike earthworms can't reproduce by dividing themselves : / that would be novel.

[Miktar]

I fail to see how that would happen. All I thought about through puberty was sex. Hell, its pretty much all I think about these days as well.

I only started thinking about sex around 16.

[Antimatter]

Really? I guess having an older brother makes you think about things earlier. Flipping through a porno mag at 11 years old is pretty "awakening".

[TheLionsInnards]

I actually read the thread and picked that up, I was referring to 'exclusively homosexual' guys... :) Surely I'm not the only one on these forums?

Sorry, please forgive.

[Miktar]

Oh, I /knew/ about sex long before, probably since about 6. But I only /wanted/ it after 16. Until then, I just had too much other **** on my plate.

[Shadowleech]

Oh ****, you're right, sorry.

Apology accepted :)

@TheLionsInnards - You are forgiven :)

[Chippit]

It's been a while since we've seen this thread, so I figure I'd bump it up so that all the new folks who've joined since it died can have their say and cast their vote. It's a shame for this insightful thread to be forgotten, imo. For everyone who doesn't care to read through the whole thread to catch up, just note the important bit: Your vote is completely anonymous.

Now, new guys, cast ye votes please, and let this thread live again.

[Miktar]

This is an Officially Sanctioned Necropost.

[Chippit]

Oh, and it'll also be interesting to see if any people have changed their self-classification since they first cast their vote. How much can change in half a year or less?

[Miktar]

Thing is, you can't change your vote.

[wisp]

ahem ..*cough* .. the last time this post came up i was , shall we say not ready to accept it as a thread on Nag forum..i have changed and therefore retract my previous statement from way back them ..if i can ?

I have now voted

[Q-Man]

Nothing changed from this side. also

LOLSEX.

Where is db :(

[GenericUserName]

Necro thread I know , found it way back in a deep dark corner of the archive vault covered in dust but it does make for some interesting reading, was just wondering why so few votes ?

[Miktar]

Ug. This thread will not die.

So few votes probably because not everyone feels like voting?

[Jimbo007]

? know this post is prolonging the life of this thread (Sorry Miktar), but this was truly a great read, and I felt I had to say so :D

I'm normally fixed in my opinion when it comes to this, but there were some compelling arguements which has made me think a little more laterally.

[vii]

Necro thread I know , found it way back in a deep dark corner of the archive vault covered in dust but it does make for some interesting reading, was just wondering why so few votes ?

Usually when you find a thread in the deep dark corners of the forum recesses theres a reason for it... People got tired of it and let it die a nice and natural death! And now what you have done is brought it back from its eternal slumber as a zombie... now it will want the BRAAAIIINNZZ of lesser threads!

[Death_cometh]

I voted for a 0. I am confident in my sexuality. I often share the bed with my friends and am not complled in anyway to be strange. Its just one of thoses things guys don't do.

[Azimuth]

UNLESS THEYRE ***S ROFL.