Support NeoGAF

[ab.aeterno]

I'm just trying to explain how straight people think, I don't mean to offend. Just tell me how to edit it, so it won't offend anyone. And ill do it.

Like I said, I understand your intent, and your argument -- not trying to jump on you, to be clear. I think you argument would be more clear, and also bypass any notion of normal/regular, by presenting it as degrees of fantasy or desirability, if nothing else. Your example, for straight men, goes from most to least sexually desirable. For straight women, it would probably be inverted?

Sorry if that's not much help, it's late and I'm mentally exhausted.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

No, it does not make you prejudiced. Sodomy is, from a functional and biological point of view, aberrant from the penis-vagina intercourse, so there is an expected amount of hesitation built into you - built into everyone, actually. But for some, social views have over come that hesitation over time.

 

[krypt0nian]

No, it does not make you prejudiced. Sodomy is, from a functional and biological point of view, aberrant from the penis-vagina intercourse, so there is an expected amount of hesitation built into you - built into everyone, actually. But for some, social views have over come that hesitation over time.

Wait what?

Jesusfuck...

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Wait what?

Jesusfuck...

?

 

[ab.aeterno]

No, it does not make you prejudiced. Sodomy is, from a functional and biological point of view, aberrant from the penis-vagina intercourse, so there is an expected amount of hesitation built into you - built into everyone, actually. But for some, social views have over come that hesitation over time.

Why call it sodomy?

Also, not only is this a really heteronormative post -- anything that isn't vaginal intercourse is "aberrant" -- but your bolded assertion lacks foundation. I wanna see the receipts on that if you're going to assert such a broad generalization as fact, because it does not make sense to me that homosexuals would have an inbuilt hesitation for the thing their bodies are wired to find attractive.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Why call it sodomy?

I do not understand - why not? Anal sex and sodomy are synonyms.

Also, not only is this a really heteronormative post -- anything that isn't vaginal intercourse is "aberrant" -- but your bolded assertion lacks foundation. [/B]I wanna see the receipts on that if you're going to assert such a broad generalization as fact, because it does not make sense to me that homosexuals would have an inbuilt hesitation for the thing their bodies are wired to find attractive.

From a functional and biological point of view, this is certainly uncontroversial. Anal sex certainly goes outside the mold from this perspective, but that's not the only perspective. As I said, social views that develop are also another perspective to consider. Now, perhaps you dispute the functional and biological picture of sex is penis-vagina intercourse, is that the case?

 

[krypt0nian]

This has got to be a troll. No one is this obtuse these days, right?

 

[Devolution]

Functional and biological point of view is always so heteronormative despite everything we can observe. Funny that.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

This has got to be a troll. No one is this obtuse these days, right?

Care to refute anything I wrote? I would gladly retract anything that is incorrect.

 

[Devolution]

You're defining biological or natural as strictly procreative. Error.

 

[Kangi]

This has got to be a troll. No one is this obtuse these days, right?

I do believe this is the "My 'intellectual friend' disagrees with gay marriage. What sayest thou?" person. So potentially, yes.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

No, it does not make you prejudiced. Sodomy is, from a functional and biological point of view, aberrant from the penis-vagina intercourse, so there is an expected amount of hesitation built into you - built into everyone, actually. But for some, social views have over come that hesitation over time.

...No

 

[Devolution]

Explain oral sex.

Also orgasms from prostate stimulation.

Thanks.

 

[krypt0nian]

Functional and biological point of view is always so heteronormative despite everything we can observe. Funny that.

Diabetes is also abhorrent from a functional and biological standpoint. We have a natural revulsion to people who have it, although societal influences can help us overcome it. Also people who need glasses. Hahahahaha.

Why is there always one in the bunch that goes this facile route? And using loaded words like sodomy, even though that applies to straight oral sex as well.

I don't have the patience for this shit.

 

[Speevy]

How can one be prejudiced against a man sticking his penis in another man's ass?

It's like being prejudiced against mountain climbing.

Whether you like it or not doesn't necessarily say anything about how you have treated gay people, or will treat them in the future.

Hell, just read all the topics we have about heterosexuals arguing over this very topic. Some say it's gross while others say it's heavenly. Are half those people prejudiced? I sincerely doubt it.

And yes, I can totally see why a gay man would find heterosexual sex repulsive.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Functional and biological point of view is always so heteronormative despite everything we can observe. Funny that.

Hmm. We can tackle this in a more general way or in a more specific way. In a general way, we can consider the demands imposed on us by evolution and the imperative to procreate. In a specific way, we can consider an analysis of sex itself. Let's do the latter. The end of sex tends towards male ejaculation of semen that contains sperm, sperm whose end is the fertilization of a female egg. That is what the sperm is for. That is what sperm does. That is what the egg is for. That is what the egg does. Anatomical dimorphism accommodates sex. The vagina produces lubricant to help ease the penis, for example. The anus does not. It is plain to see that from the functional and biological perspective, the end of the sexual act is not met in any orifice other than the female vagina.

Why deny the science, here? Why deny what's rational evident? Perhaps it's because you seem to think that it has negative implications in some way? But that is not suggested by the facts themselves - interpretation is a human and philosophical act. Facts of themselves are inert in that respect. Besides, it's not the only legitimate consideration in the gay rights crusade, and you don't win any points by denying common sense.

 

[Paracelsus]

There are various sexual things that make me cringe, some way more than gay sex, so I don't see the big deal.

 

[krypt0nian]

Hmm. We can tackle this in a more general way or in a more specific way. In a general way, we can consider the demands imposed on us by evolution and the imperative to procreate. In a specific way, we can consider an analysis of sex itself. Let's do the latter. The end of sex tends towards male ejaculation of semen that contains sperm, sperm whose end is the fertilization of a female egg. That is what the sperm is for. That is what sperm does. That is what the egg is for. That is what the egg does. Anatomical dimorphism accommodates sex. The vagina produces lubricant to help ease the penis, for example. The anus does not. It is plain to see that from the functional and biological perspective, the end of the sexual act is not met in any orifice other than the female vagina.

Why deny the science, here? Why deny what's rational evident? Perhaps it's because you seem to think that it has negative implications in some way? But that is not suggested by the facts themselves - interpretation is a human and philosophical act. Facts of themselves are inert in that respect. Besides, it's not the only legitimate consideration in the gay rights crusade, and you don't win any points by denying common sense.

Are you suggesting that any sex that isn't for procreative means is abhorant? Or that humans instinctually react to things that are functionally or biologically "unnatural"?

Pure idiocy. And a tactic that has been used to justify anti-gay sentiments for decades.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Diabetes is also abhorrent from a functional and biological standpoint. We have a natural revulsion to people who have it, although societal influences can help us overcome it. Also people who need glasses. Hahahahaha.

There is no need for snark. I have been very respectful of you, and, in appreciation of your disagreement, asked you to elaborate, but you have not done so. You are now abusively referring to me in the third person.

You are also equivocating. The OP expressed revulsion at anal sex, not the participants involved in the act. So your diabetes analogy is inept - it is not the person that we necessarily "revile," but the disease they have. And we absolutely do not like disease. That distinction would have made your analogy more accurate.

Why is there always one in the bunch that goes this facile route? And using loaded words like sodomy, even though that applies to straight oral sex as well.

The word is "loaded?" How? And I know, of course, that it refers to both heterosexuals and homosexuals involved in the act. That is why I chose it.

I don't have the patience for this shit.

I suggest you put more time into explaining your disagreement so that rational dialogue can occur. Thus far, you have been rude, abrupt, and dismissive - and that has gotten you into equivocation, as I showed above. As I told devolution, I will gladly retract anything that I have written that is incorrect.

 

[krypt0nian]

No way am I leading you by the hand through something that is on a level as bad as "but I have black friends" or any other simpleton argument. Google it for your damn self.

You've trolled us long enough.

 

[Raging Spaniard]

Seeing somebody eat food staight out of a can grosses me out and seeing dudes making out grosses me out.

But, unlike others, I get over myself and accept that people will continue to be different than myself and pursue happyness in different ways that I do. Thats a good thing and I love the word we live in because of our differences.

So, to answer your question. I dont think so.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

There is no need for snark. I have been very respectful of you, and, in appreciation of your disagreement, asked you to elaborate, but you have not done so. You are now abusively referring to me in the third person.

You are also equivocating. The OP expressed revulsion at anal sex, not the participants involved in the act. So your diabetes analogy is inept - it is not the person that we necessarily "revile," but the disease they have. And we absolutely do not like disease. That distinction would have made your analogy more accurate.



The word is "loaded?" How? And I know, of course, that it refers to both heterosexuals and homosexuals involved in the act. That is why I chose it.



I suggest you put more time into explaining your disagreement so that rational dialogue can occur. Thus far, you have been rude, abrupt, and dismissive - and that has gotten you into equivocation, as I showed above. As I told devolution, I will gladly retract anything that I have written that is incorrect.

If teh gayzz aren't biologically natural, then how do you explain the plethora of animals besides humans that partake in gay sex?

 

[ivysaur12]

The word is "loaded?" How? And I know, of course, that it refers to both heterosexuals and homosexuals involved in the act. That is why I chose it.

It's a word commonly used by anti-gay members of the Christian right to demonize gay people based off gay men's intimacy. I would recommend you never use it because by using sodomy, you probably set off the chain of reactions you see now.

Seeing somebody eat food staight out of a can grosses me out and seeing dudes making out grosses me out.

Why? Do seeing two women make out gross you out? If you had a friend who was gay and getting married, would you turn away when they kissed at the end of the ceremony?

 

[NinjaBoiX]

laughing at these "2 dudes kissing is gross but TWO GIRLS MAKING OUT IS SO HOT DUDE" responses though, really shows the male centered homophobia and hypocrisy the world is known for.

Oh come on man, finding lesbians kissing attractive but not gay men doesn't necessarily make you a homophobe.

How about, you know, two people you find attractive kissing is attractive, while two people you don't isn't?

 

[Necromanti]

Hmm. We can tackle this in a more general way or in a more specific way. In a general way, we can consider the demands imposed on us by evolution and the imperative to procreate. In a specific way, we can consider an analysis of sex itself. Let's do the latter. The end of sex tends towards male ejaculation of semen that contains sperm, sperm whose end is the fertilization of a female egg. That is what the sperm is for. That is what sperm does. That is what the egg is for. That is what the egg does. Anatomical dimorphism accommodates sex. The vagina produces lubricant to help ease the penis, for example. The anus does not. It is plain to see that from the functional and biological perspective, the end of the sexual act is not met in any orifice other than the female vagina.

Why deny the science, here? Why deny what's rational evident? Perhaps it's because you seem to think that it has negative implications in some way? But that is not suggested by the facts themselves - interpretation is a human and philosophical act. Facts of themselves are inert in that respect. Besides, it's not the only legitimate consideration in the gay rights crusade, and you don't win any points by denying common sense.

I see you've evolved from your "my friend has reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage out of Aristotelian principles" tirade. But no matter.

The issue with your reasoning here is that you are assuming that an organ or mechanism exists for one sole purpose. "X is for Y" is a mindset that does not sufficiently explain our evolutionary history, or the function of, say, a single protein that can be involved in multiple dependent and/or independent processes depending on time and space. Take the mouth, for instance. Would you say that it is for eating? For communication? For assisting in respiration? Such reductionist reasoning is counter to what the evidence shows.

There are valid hypotheses as for why homosexuality--or bisexuality, let's say--is favorable in a species. Look at bonobos, for example. Non-procreative can be used as a social function that is used to barter, to strengthen social bonds, or to resolve conflicts. Homosexuality makes sense from an indirect fitness perspective, as you will have close genetic relatives that are not directly competing, but instead can assist in the rearing of and helping with the young.

From a simple biological perspective, anal sex for men--which is not exclusive to homosexuals--is pleasurable due to nerve endings in the anus, and the very convenient location of the prostate. The location of this male G-spot may have a million of interconnecting and interrelated reasons for being there, one of them being favorable towards why anal sex is not entirely unpopular.

Homosexuality, and independently, what you refer to as "sodomy", has existed throughout human (and sexual animal) history, and continues to do so today. I fail to see how your argument is anything but unscientific in one respect, but lacking in rational development as well.

 

[Karkador]

The word is "loaded?" How? And I know, of course, that it refers to both heterosexuals and homosexuals involved in the act. That is why I chose it.

Do you understand where the word "sodomy" originates from?

 

[krypt0nian]

If teh gayzz aren't biologically natural, then how do you explain the plethora of animals besides humans that partake in gay sex?

Clearly their straight animal brethren look down upon them from a biological and functional standpoint too, Dolphin. You know, instinctually because of reasons.


EDIT: Holy shit, he's the guy with the friend with reasonable reasons that gay marriage is wrong?

Well piss right off for acting like this wasn't coming from a antigay slant. Don't play games here, son.

 

[sphagnum]

It's probably conditioned. When I was conservative I found it repulsive but now if I see a clip or a picture of it I'm not bothered in the slightest. It doesn't register in my mind as attractive or repulsive, just as an act.

 

[ivysaur12]

Oh come on man, finding lesbians kissing attractive but not gay men doesn't necessarily make you a homophobe.

How about, you know, two people you find attractive kissing is attractive, while two people you don't isn't?

How about, finding two adults sharing a light peck shouldn't really be gross.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

Are you suggesting that any sex that isn't for procreative means is abhorant?

More equivocation. Perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully. But short answer: no. For one, I said aberrant, not abhorrent. The latter implies a moral conclusion, whereas the form, in the context in which it was said (i.e., functional and biological), merely means deviating from function. Second, as I said, "It is plain to see that from the functional and biological perspective, the end of the sexual act is not met in any orifice other than the female vagina." So not different per se, just different under these axes of interpretation.

Or that humans instinctually react to things that are functionally or biologically "unnatural"?

It seems plausible from a evolutionary psychology point of view. We have these imperatives, many individuals here - some of them gay - have expressed this hesitancy before other facts helped them appreciate a new perspective.

Pure idiocy.

Assertion, and a rather uncouth one at that. I will not respond to any more posts where I am berated like this - what's the point? Why dialogue with someone who treats what you say like this?

And a tactic that has been used to justify anti-gay sentiments for decades.

Non sequitur. Just because it's been used that way, it doesn't mean any analysis I've offered is false. I have even explained that the facts themselves are inert, to interpret them is a human act involving philosophy. So if you have a problem with how they have been used, you have a problem to take up with philosophy, not the science.

 

[ivysaur12]

My favorite argumentative style is one that employs a mix of psuedoscience and Philosophy 101 reasoning.

 

[krypt0nian]

More equivocation. Perhaps you should slow down and read more carefully. But short answer: no. For one, I said aberrant, not abhorrent. The latter implies a moral conclusion, whereas the form, in the context in which it was said (i.e., functional and biological), merely means deviating from function. Second, as I said, "It is plain to see that from the functional and biological perspective, the end of the sexual act is not met in any orifice other than the female vagina." So not different per se, just different under these axes of interpretation.



It seems plausible from a evolutionary psychology point of view. We have these imperatives, many individuals here - some of them gay - have expressed this hesitancy before other facts helped them appreciate a new perspective.



Assertion, and a rather uncouth one at that. I will not respond to any more posts where I am berated like this - what's the point? Why dialogue with someone who treats what you say like this?



Non sequitur. Just because it's been used that way, it doesn't mean any analysis I've offered is false. I have even explained that the facts themselves are inert, to interpret them is a human act involving philosophy. So if you have a problem with how they have been used, you have a problem to take up with philosophy, not the science.

You really should be ashamed.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

If teh gayzz aren't biologically natural, then how do you explain the plethora of animals besides humans that partake in gay sex?

Oh dear, this must be a troll. I am only responding to it in case it isn't: read what I said again. The antecedent of your statement I never claimed, and the consequent is a blatant red herring. The analysis I offered is not affected in the least if homo sapiens is not the only species that engages in sexual acts where the end of sex is not met in an intelligible way from a functional point of view.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

Sometimes sloths die because their digestion slows down to a point where they don't get any nutrients. I don't think we can argue that biology is the end-all-be-all lol

 

[JJDinomite]

Sometimes sloths die because their digestion slows down to a point where they don't get any nutrients. I don't think we can argue that biology is the end-all-be-all lol

what do you know you're a dolphin

 

[ivysaur12]

Oh dear, this must be a troll. I am only responding to it in case it isn't: read what I said again. The antecedent of your statement I never claimed, and the consequent is a blatant red herring. The analysis I offered is not affected in the least if homo sapiens is not the only species that engages in sexual acts where the end of sex is not met in an intelligible way from a functional point of view.

You're reducing, again, sex to procreation, when both vaginal and anal sex have a host of other biological and evolutionary functions.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

How about, finding two adults sharing a light peck shouldn't really be gross.

I think it's just a given than "kissing" in the context of the OP is properly kissing. "Snogging" if you like.

I find the image of two girls snogging incredibly attractive and arousing.

I'm not repulsed by two guys snogging, but I certainly don't find it attractive.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

balladofthewindfish aren't you getting tired? Your writing style makes me feel really high strung. I think you'd probably feel better if you took a step back.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

what do you know you're a dolphin

#tru. Although dolphins are known to have sex just for pleasure and not procreation.

 

[ivysaur12]

I think it's just a given than "kissing" in the context of the OP is properly kissing. "Snogging" if you like.

I find the image of two girls snogging incredibly attractive and arousing.

I'm not repulsed by two guys snogging, but I certainly don't find it attractive.

No one was asking about attractive. There are very few situations where two people kissing at a reasonable level should cause someone to be actively repulsed.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

I am getting to these responses, one-by-one, in the order in which they were made.

It's a word commonly used by anti-gay members of the Christian right to demonize gay people based off gay men's intimacy. I would recommend you never use it because by using sodomy, you probably set off the chain of reactions you see now.

Fair enough.

My favorite argumentative style is one that employs a mix of psuedoscience and Philosophy 101 reasoning.

These are just assertions (and I am using Logic 101, not philosophy, lol). If this is, in fact, the case, prove it.

 

[krypt0nian]

You're reducing, again, sex to procreation, when both vaginal and anal sex have a host of other biological and evolutionary functions.

This is what I mean. This natural and functional argument has been dissected and ripped apart ad infinitum over the years. But he expects us to argue it again because he thinks he's come up with it and cannot google.

 

[Moff]

Be surprised. Vaginas are not something some gay men usually find appealing in the slightest.

that's ok, but "not appealing" is not the same as "repulsive and grossed out" in my book.
I think you can be totally indifferent so something without being repulsed by it.

I've heard it from gay people, and asexual people here on GAF and some other forums I use have said they find the idea of any kind of sexual behavior gross. Also think back to when you were very young, let's say from 3 to 6, did you think kissing was gross? Did anyone you knew your age think it was? Sexual acts outside of ones own sexuality can quite easily be repulsive.

sadly I myself am really not a representative benchmark. but its alright, I totally believe now that some gays probably react the same way to straight sex like most straight dudes react to gay sex.

 

[ivysaur12]

These are just assertions (and I am using Logic 101, not philosophy, lol). If this is, in fact, the case, prove it.

Prove what? Your pseudoscientific claims that reduce sex to sole procreative purposes? Others have done so more eloquently than I, but sure: you're refusing to see sex as anything other than having a procreative purpose, which is wrong, while relying on passive aggressive language and the tone of an arrogant college student to assert your points without a hint that maybe, maybe, this is a very personal and touchy subject for people and you should employ a bit more empathy and imagination in your ability to understand why people might be reacting harshly to your claims.

 

[NinjaBoiX]

No one was asking about attractive. There are very few situations where two people kissing at a reasonable level should cause someone to be actively repulsed.

Yeah, fair enough. I think I got sidetracked a little!

I think if you're at the point of nearly vomiting watching two guys kiss then you probably have some fairly serious issues.

 

[encephalon]

Assertion, and a rather uncouth one at that.

I hope you don't think this kind of language makes your argument sound in any way sophisticated.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yeah, fair enough. I think I got sidetracked a little!

I think if you're at the point of nearly vomiting watching two guys kiss then you probably have some fairly serious issues.

No worries. Which is why I think it's odd that people are just saying that in this thread with the assumption that as long as they're for gay rights, it's cool.

If two guys kissing makes you physically revolt, you might need to look in the mirror and ask yourself why.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

Prove what? Your pseudoscientific claims that reduce sex to sole procreative purposes? Others have done so more eloquently than I, but sure: you're refusing to see sex as anything other than having a procreative purpose, which is wrong, while relying on passive aggressive language and the tone of an arrogant college student to assert your points without a hint that maybe, maybe, this is a very personal and touchy subject for people and you should employ a bit more empathy and imagination in your ability to understand why people might be reacting harshly to your claims.

Well said. And, balladofthewindfish, if you're still wondering why people are mad at you, maybe consider that while this may be some impersonal argument on the internet to you, to many people here (including myself) you're attacking them fundamentally as people. And yeah, that's a pretty shitty thing to do.

 

[Bsigg12]

There's nothing wrong with not wanting to see it. There's ton of porn that I would prefer to never see again in my life but if you're getting angry about it, you might need to see someone.

 

[balladofthewindfish]

I see you've evolved from your "my friend has reasonable arguments against same-sex marriage out of Aristotelian principles" tirade. But no matter.

I think you are suggesting that I have been dishonest all along, and that my anti-gay agenda is now surfacing. Sorry to disappoint you, but no, you are wrong. As I have said in other threads, I care very much about intellectual honesty. I am pro-abortion, but I acknowledge the scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception. When I pointed that out to pro-choicers who deny the plain science, there was a similar questioning of my motives and allegiances. I am not used to this in the circles that I run, that is frivolous ad hominem that, even if true, distracted from the claims and arguments, so there is no point in even raising them unless you are sophist. I am not used to these drive-by posts where people think its intellectually respectable to just make assertions. In the circles where I run, that shit would get you pretty excluded rather quickly.

So just because I don't preface my posts with saying "Hey, guys, I am really on your side, but there's no need to be fanboys about this," doesn't mean I'm secretly "One of them." Now... onto the rest of the post (I thought I would get this out of the way first).