Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off. I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them. It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it. It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman. I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have. One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for $10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled—completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did.

Now, let’s ignore the homosexual’s lack of social graces. Let’s say he was just hitting on him and he didn’t actually ask him for a blow job for $10. It’s still wrong because he was assuming he was gay. It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males. Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.” No. Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments. We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it. I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you. While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either. Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

Am I wrong here?

Do all homosexuals behave the same way?

Yes that dude was a rude git and lacked social graces, but I don't think it's so wrong to assume someone is gay, if I hit on a good lookng guy, is that wrong because I'm assuming he is heterosexual? How is he supposed to know?

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

no.
what is wrong is to deny them jobs or housing because they are homosexuals.

Everyone is free to be disgusted in what they wish, so no you aren't wrong. However, what -is- wrong is to mistreat or act discriminatory against them. Regardless of how they choose to live their lives, they're still human.

Keep in mind also, francois, that homosexual individuals do not have the luxury of finding people that are like them in a random bar. For Heterosexuals its simple, you see the opposite sex, you go for it. For them? I imagine there is some guessing involved. If it happens to you, brush it off. Some of them share the same interests as women, so its fair to assume a girl would find the same things in you attractive that a guy would. Look for the silver lining.

Maybe you ping as fag on the gaydar, francois.

I mean, your pseudonym is francois. How pussy is that?

I would reject any Freudian notion that homophobia is entirely due to the suppression of homosexual tendencies; I think that there is an evolutionary trait that prevents males from being attracted to other males...if this trait didn't exist then reproduction would stop.

Primates express all manner of sexual and social groupings and to my experience this is mirrored in human populations...therefore I would regard homosexuality as entirely natural - disgust being culturally-derived but as a by-product of a trait offering fitness in the environment.

Maybe you ping as fag on the gaydar, francois.
Perhaps you're right. However, that doesn't matter. The point is, gays should be sure that the person they're hitting on, complimenting or making some kind of advance on, is also gay. So hitting on and flirting with another person of the same gender is fine if you're in a gay bar or in some gay place. That's fine. That's what those places are for. But hitting on somebody or making some kind of advance on a person in a regular bar or any not explicitly gay public place should be absolutely, positively sure that the person he/she is hitting on is also gay. They should bend over backwards. Even if I do look gay (which I don't), a homosexual shouldn't hit on me. Unless a homosexual is in a gay bar, they should ask the people around "Hey, do you know if that person is gay/available for some man-on-man action?" And then when they've talked to enough people to be confident that the person in question is in fact, gay, then that person can go ahead and flirt and camp it up with said person.

I mean, your pseudonym is francois. How pussy is that?
You think Francois is a pussy name? It's not pussy. It's just French. All French names sound pussy to us. Jacques. Uh, Ivan. Jean-paul. It sounds gay as hell, I'll admit. But it's not.

I think the behavior you describe is very rare.

francois:

You seem to have double standards. You're quite ok with heterosexual men "hitting" on girls in bars, it seems, trying to pick them up. But when it comes to homosexual men hitting on men in bars to try to pick them up, then you get all offended.

I can only assume that you feel somehow threatened by homosexuals showing interest in you. Yet, at the same time, you can't comprehend that a woman might equally feel threatened by your uninvited interest in her.

You say:

I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others.

And yet, you seem quite willing to impose your sexuality on other people. And you also seem quite happy for others to impose their sexuality on you - provided that you welcome their advances.

So, it seems to me that what you really want is for people to read your mind and magically deduce whether you want sexual attention or not. If they are a "hot chick", then bring it on. But if they are a "hot guy", they should somehow just know that you're not into that.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

If you're claiming that men never make sexual advances to girls - that it's always the other way around - you're living in a fantasyland. Males are constantly throwing themselves at women in the hope of a favourable response - much moreso than vice versa.

Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them.

But you're happy to "put the moves on" any women, I suppose. What if she is homosexual? Shouldn't you check, first, like you expect men to check your sexuality? Tell me - how do you propose that will work? "Hi, I'm Bernard." "Hi, I'm francois." "Just checking, francois - are you homosexual?"

It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it.

Why? There's no "violation" between consenting adults.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have.

And you think that there aren't equally audacious heterosexual men who go around propositioning every woman they see and think might be fair game?

One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males.

How hard is it to say "Thanks, but I'm not interested"?

Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals.

Well, it might be a 7 to 1 ratio, or something like that. Not terrible odds.

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort?

Do the men who proposition women think the same thing?

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it.

I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you.

James R.:

Serious, non-baiting, question: Are you, yourself, a homosexual?

Why do you ask, Prince_James?

whats harder

homos stopping the eye
or
us not getting turned off by it

James R.:

To guage whether your lack of empathy regarding heterosexual distaste of homosexual advances (and the acts they imply) is rooted in your own sexuality being distinct from heterosexuality. That is to say, just as one cannot rightfully say they can imagine they hate chocolate if they love chocolate, so too can someone who loves men cannot imagine that they do not.

I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you.

Apparently not!! There are "Gay Pride" marches; "Gay Coming-Out" parties; "Lesbian Pride" day; .....and a whole slew of such bullshit!! Which is, if you can't figure it out, letting everyone know who and what they are.

When's the last time you saw a parade for "Men Who Love Pussy-Eating"? Or "Women Who Love Suckin' Dick" parades? Or "Males Who Love Fuckin' Pussy" parades and demonstrations?

Baron Max

Ok---here's one. If a guy makes an unwanted advance on a woman, it is ok for her to slap him right? If a gay man makes an unwanted advance on me, can I do the same?

Have you ever accidentally hit on a lesbian? I mean, do you go through a checklist before you approach a girl to make sure that she is straight (as you would have gay men do)?

“How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for $10?”

It's like Feynman said---you never know unless you ask.

I think you are getting way too worked up over this. Imagine it this way---not only do girls want to sleep with you, but so do guys. That's awesome. You should get an ego boost out of that.

It seems that you aren't disgusted with the sexual freedom that one observes on Friday nights in the local bar, so I am interested that you seem to have some sort of moral objection to homosexuality.

Prince_James:

To guage whether your lack of empathy regarding heterosexual distaste of homosexual advances (and the acts they imply) is rooted in your own sexuality being distinct from heterosexuality.

You think that if somebody isn't homophobic themselves, they can't possibly comprehend what it is to be homophobic, or what might motivate that?

I find it interesting that you think that poor men who are occasionally "hit on" against their wills by homosexuals require "empathy" - as if such an act amounts to a devastating affront to their dignity and self-image. Maybe for the men who react in this way, it does. But then, the relevant question to ask is: what, in fact, is it that they find offensive?

Clearly, this is not a mere objection about overt sexuality, since the same men are fine for such displays to occur provided that they are the kind of displays they personally approve of or participate in.

I'm more inclined to think that the literal meaning of "homophobia" is relevant here.

On the subject of my own sexuality, I have to say that, frankly, what I do in the privacy of my bedroom is none of your business. Moreover, I can't see that it would in any way help make my point to "come out" as either straight or gay here. If I say I'm straight, you'll argue that I can't comment on the motivations of gay people, and that I've probably never been "hit on" by a gay male in an unwelcome way. On the other hand, if I say I'm gay, then you replay you argument that I can't possibly understand what a straight man might think, because I haven't walked a mile in his shoes. Either way, revealing my sexual preference doesn't help me.

What I will say, and what should be clear from what I have written here and elsewhere on the matter, I have no problem with people being homosexual. It is an entirely natural human variation. Most people who object do so on religious grounds, whether or not they admit as much overtly. In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are. For that matter, I wonder what your religious views are.

But then, I think you're about as likely to reveal your religious outlook as I am to reveal my sexual preferences in the current context.

Baron Max:

Apparently not!! There are "Gay Pride" marches; "Gay Coming-Out" parties; "Lesbian Pride" day; .....and a whole slew of such bullshit!! Which is, if you can't figure it out, letting everyone know who and what they are.

Minorities with a history of repression and suppression often feel that it is necessary to stake out their claim as legitimate members of society.

Heterosexual males have no such need. They are already accepted as the "norm".

But that doesn't account for an evolutionary trait designed to safeguard against extinction through lack of reproduction. We can't feel ego-boosted because nature didn't design us that way...

"Minorities with a history of repression and suppression often feel that it is necessary to stake out their claim as legitimate members of society."

However, this reinforces notions of 'otherness' - surely it is better to accept the fact that you have been accepted as a norm and get on without maintaining a separate identity from the norm.

surely it is better to accept the fact that you have been accepted as a norm and get on without maintaining a separate identity from the norm.

Do you think homosexuals have been accepted as a "norm"? I'll bet Prince_James and francois and Baron Max don't think homosexuality is "normal".

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?


No.

Until 1984 homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the UK...thats right 1984.
Whilst, as I propose, homophobia is an evolutionary trait to avoid extinction, UK citizens are obliged by law not to discriminate and in most cases homosexuality is accepted as a cultural norm, albeit not a biological one in all cases.

There lots of gay and straight animals...so whats the fuss about?

There lots of gay and straight animals...so whats the fuss about?

gay converting normal straight to gay.

gay converting normal straight to gay.

hmm a homophobic spurious spurious_monkey.

do I know you?:bugeye:

That would lead to extinction of the species...perhaps things would balance out when an equilibrium of a ecologically-sustainable population was reached.

I don't EVER flirt with or eye gay men. They don't turn me on. Straight guys do, and you'd be surprised how many are OK with a little action now-n-then. REAL surprised. Effeminate men are fine to party with, etc but they aren't masculine, what attracts MY attention.
Feeling threatened by a man checking you out, in a public place, says more about Francois's insecurities than it does about gayman manners.
If a straight guy is jogging through a local hip urban park wearing just running shorts and exposing his buff bod to the world I'll check him out and make no effort to hide it. If I see a cute kid working the movie concessions I'll do what any man my age would if said concessioneer was a sexy young female; Check it out when they turn around, then move on.
I don't act gay so I've been eyed by girlymen before and find it quite nice myself. Straight friends feel the same, the ones I know. The FEMALES I know are bothered alot more by lesbians looking at them
So, if you look good you get attention, from alot of people. Be happy you have looks! Unless someone grabs your ass or shoves his tongue in your mouth chill bro. We appreciate beauty just like everyone else, we just don't have a Hooters.

do I know you?:bugeye:

yes:p

gay converting normal straight to gay.Uhh, either you're homo or hetero. No one infects the other or there wouldn't be any gays. We're vastly outnumbered but apparently still scare the shit out of people.:confused:

Yeah...good point and it should be pointed out that many cultures have more than two genders...e.g. Eskimos have 8

"we're vastly outnumbered but appaently still scare the shit out of people."

This is just a self-depreciating myth...no homosexual should be victimised in my view and that applies to those who espouse a victim culture.

"we're vastly outnumbered but appaently still scare the shit out of people."

This is just a self-depreciating myth...no homosexual should be victimised in my view and that applies to those who espouse a victim culture.Victim culture? You're WAY outta date. That was the 80's dahling.:rolleyes: Gays LOVE their culture, it's the same as any other American's. This site overflows with threads about us and there IS fear, hate and anger directed at us www.godhatesfags.com from many directions, but we still here! Afraid to even let us get married! C'mon. My remark you quoted stands.

I can emphasise with your situation, being someone who uses science as a tool to explain the universe - I too am subject to this type of hatred...but I am not homosexual. What we have in common is that we are both human, I see homosexuality as just an entirely natural phenomena as heterosexuality or bisexuality or oninism. But I also think that aversion to homosexual activity is a biological trait and entirely natural too.
I think all the above is true in an evolutionary context.
By the way I have been to many events, workplaces and social settings where I have been in the company of homosexuals and bisexuals and heterosexuals and have enjoyed all without comparison.

Victim culture? You're WAY outta date. That was the 80's dahling.:rolleyes: Gays LOVE their culture, it's the same as any other American's. This site overflows with threads about us and there IS fear, hate and anger directed at us www.godhatesfags.com from many directions, but we still here! Afraid to even let us get married! C'mon. My remark you quoted stands.

What you say is true...there is discrimination in some places...my experience is of the UK and things are pretty liberal here also in the eyes of the law. I'm sure discrimination exists elsewhere and my point in introducing evolutionary psychology was to examine what the root of prejudice might be.

In response to the initial thread question: Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals? I would say no (due to an evolutionary trait to avoid extinction) - a more revealing question is 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a homosexual act?' or more revealingly 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a sexual act?'

To say it's wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals is like how they used to say it's wrong to defecate or have a wet dream in the dark ages.
Ofcourse it isn't wrong, it's what your physical body does in response to gay stimulai.

I once was talking to this dude outside of a club saying my friends are weak for just staying inside after I was kicked out, when all of a sudden he reached for inner thigh.
I pushed his hand away and just stumbled off in a daze, before falling into a gutter and vomitting powerfully.
I'm pretty sure my drunkedness had nothing to do with it.

And I can touch inner thigh in a jokey way with friends, even dry hump them, but to think a real dude was actually hitting on me with plans for serious intercourse was the most sickening feeling I've ever experienced.
It's hard to explain, but no amount of open mindedness or tolerance could have changed it. It was a primal core reaction to the situation, my skin crawled and I shuddered and dry heaved well into the next day.
I also punched one of my friends in the face when they finally stumbled out of the club laughing in good spirits.

What you say is true...there is discrimination in some places...my experience is of the UK and things are pretty liberal here also in the eyes of the law. I'm sure discrimination exists elsewhere and my point in introducing evolutionary psychology was to examine what the root of prejudice might be.

In response to the initial thread question: Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals? I would say no (due to an evolutionary trait to avoid extinction) - a more revealing question is 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a homosexual act?' or more revealingly 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a sexual act?'The USA is at least 25 years behind the UK and Europe regarding those that don't fit into the Christian Family catergory.
It is wrong to be disgusted by homos. As it is wrong to be disgusted by heteros. We are more than our sex acts! I don't look at straights and automatically think of them having sex. They are not a threat to me. If I see a hot guy it's the same as a breeder seeing a hot chick.
Be disgusted with sex acts (that reside in the head for some reason) not the person themselves.

To say it's wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals is like how they used to say it's wrong to defecate or have a wet dream in the dark ages.
Ofcourse it isn't wrong, it's what your physical body does in response to gay stimulai.

I once was talking to this dude outside of a club saying my friends are weak for just staying inside after I was kicked out, when all of a sudden he reached for inner thigh.
I pushed his hand away and just stumbled off in a daze, before falling into a gutter and vomitting powerfully.
I'm pretty sure my drunkedness had nothing to do with it.

And I can touch inner thigh in a jokey way with friends, even dry hump them, but to think a real dude was actually hitting on me with plans for serious intercourse was the most sickening feeling I've ever experienced.
It's hard to explain, but no amount of open mindedness or tolerance could have changed it. It was a primal core reaction to the situation, my skin crawled and I shuddered and dry heaved well into the next day.
I also punched one of my friends in the face when they finally stumbled out of the club laughing in good spirits.That was a disgusting act. This person didn't just eye you or look at you a bit longer than normal, he groped you. Your reaction was over the top but I would feel the same way. I'd recoil and feel threatened and repulsed. (Depending on if he looked good or not.) Doing that to a waitress is just as disgusting.

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I was gonna respond to this by saying it doesn't matter how you personally feel about homosexuals or homosexuality. But Genji brought up a good point: You shouldn't see two guys being dirty with each other when you see a homosexual man. I probably wouldn't say it's wrong, but it is highly illogical, and one would question how secure you are of your sexuality.

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

Are you fine when a homosexual man simply interacts with you on a casual, non-sexual level?

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Read what I write two quotes down.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

This is patently absurd, but to discuss this would diverge from the topic.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off.

Why not figure you're attractive to them, and get an ego boost from that fact?

I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual.

This makes sense. But maybe you should consider how hard it might be for them to make sure someone's gay.

Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them.

This is not true of all heterosexual men.

It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it.

Correction: It is disgusting to you. Some men take it as a compliment and experience an ego boost.

It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman.

Why not? It's just as much a compliment from a gay guy as it is from a straight girl.

I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

Geez, dude. We're all adults here. You don't have to talk like Beevis and Butthead.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have.

Yes. Some homosexuals. Just like some heterosexuals.

One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for $10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled—completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did.

That guy had no tact, it seems. Or he was really drunk.

It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males.

Says who?

Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

For most situations, I would probably tell you that maybe the guy did have reason to believe he was gay. For this guy, however, we can just explain it away as lack of social tact.

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.”

Are you basing this off the incidence with your brother's friend, and that incidence alone?

The homosexual males who do what this guy did are actually a slim minority. I hope you realize that. You can't make a strawman out of homosexual men like this, if you are.

Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments.

How do you know? How many heterosexual men do you represent? Don't you think there are some hetero men who do appreciate these compliments, for the very reason that it means the same from a man as it does from a woman?

We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

That seems a little abrasive. Maybe you just worded it wrong. Maybe you meant when people ask you to have sex with them. It's stupid to say that gay men can't talk about sex amongst themselves (which is what your statement says, as it stands). If you don't like what they're saying and you can't reasonably ask them to stop, don't listen.

That said, if you meant straight men don't like gay men asking for sex, maybe some straight men don't mind them asking, even if they don't want sex?

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me.

At least you're somewhat reasonable.

But don’t talk to me about it.

Are people walking up to you and saying, "So check this out: This one guy came up to me and asked for sex, and I rammed him hard!"?

I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you.

Well finally you're being specific about what you mean. At least you aren't claiming to represent all straight men.

While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either.

What if you are?

Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

You rank people giving you the eye above people dry-humping you? Maybe you meant "and lastly"?

Am I wrong here?

You're a little illogical. Wrong? Other than where you're illogical, I wouldn't say so.

Keep in mind also, francois, that homosexual individuals do not have the luxury of finding people that are like them in a random bar. For Heterosexuals its simple, you see the opposite sex, you go for it. For them? I imagine there is some guessing involved. If it happens to you, brush it off.

Exactly.

Some of them share the same interests as women, so its fair to assume a girl would find the same things in you attractive that a guy would. Look for the silver lining.

And again, exactly.

I would reject any Freudian notion that homophobia is entirely due to the suppression of homosexual tendencies; I think that there is an evolutionary trait that prevents males from being attracted to other males...if this trait didn't exist then reproduction would stop.

If there were such a trait, then no gay men would exist. Unless it's a genetic thing and these gay men simply lack the correct gene.

I ask for evidence that there's an evolutionary trait that prevents males from being attracted to other males. I also ask why you assume that if you're attracted to males, you can't also be attracted to females. I also ask why you associate lack of attraction to males with homophobia.

Primates express all manner of sexual and social groupings and to my experience this is mirrored in human populations...therefore I would regard homosexuality as entirely natural - disgust being culturally-derived but as a by-product of a trait offering fitness in the environment.

I ditto what I wrote above.

They should bend over backwards. Even if I do look gay (which I don't), a homosexual shouldn't hit on me. Unless a homosexual is in a gay bar, they should ask the people around "Hey, do you know if that person is gay/available for some man-on-man action?" And then when they've talked to enough people to be confident that the person in question is in fact, gay, then that person can go ahead and flirt and camp it up with said person.

Firstly: They should bend over backwards? :bugeye:

Secondly: What if they don't want to reveal to other people that they're gay, and thus don't want to go around asking "Hey, do you think that guy would want to have sex with me"?

You think Francois is a pussy name? It's not pussy. It's just French. All French names sound pussy to us. Jacques. Uh, Ivan. Jean-paul. It sounds gay as hell, I'll admit. But it's not.

Ivan is a Slavic name.

whats harder

homos stopping the eye
or
us not getting turned off by it

Ditto.

Apparently not!!

Gay people don't want to avoid homophobes?

There are "Gay Pride" marches; "Gay Coming-Out" parties; "Lesbian Pride" day; .....and a whole slew of such bullshit!! Which is, if you can't figure it out, letting everyone know who and what they are.

When's the last time you saw a parade for "Men Who Love Pussy-Eating"? Or "Women Who Love Suckin' Dick" parades? Or "Males Who Love Fuckin' Pussy" parades and demonstrations?

There's nothing stopping you from having such a pride parade.

But that doesn't account for an evolutionary trait designed to safeguard against extinction through lack of reproduction. We can't feel ego-boosted because nature didn't design us that way...

I ditto what I wrote above.

I think some people don't feel an ego boost because they're illogical and don't realize it means the same no matter who it comes from.

Yeah...good point and it should be pointed out that many cultures have more than two genders...e.g. Eskimos have 8

I also ask for some evidence of this. I suppose I can't discount it, but it does seem to me outrageous to claim Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders, mostly because I know the claim about the many Eskimo words for "snow" is also outrageous.

I can emphasise with your situation

"Empathize". :)

I see homosexuality as just an entirely natural phenomena as heterosexuality or bisexuality or oninism.

"Onanism"? The years-outdated term for masturbation?

Do the math, Athelwulf, if everyone were homosexual then humankind would be extinct within a generation.

"I also ask for some evidence of this. I suppose I can't discount it, but it does seem to me outrageous to claim Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders, mostly because I know the claim about the many Eskimo words for "snow" is also outrageous."

???

"Onanism"? The years-outdated term for masturbation?'

Which term would you prefer I use o-wise one?

i personally disagree with homosexuality (for reasons that dont matter, and i wont get into them), and i have been hit on by gay men on multiple occassions.

i have found that if you rebuff them with some humor, it doesnt go any further than that. gay people are just people like everyone else. all it takes is to treat them as human, and the treatment is reciprocated.

bottom line: dont be a jerk, and homosexuals will not bother you.

i personally disagree with homosexuality (for reasons that dont matter, and i wont get into them), and i have been hit on by gay men on multiple occassions.

i have found that if you rebuff them with some humor, it doesnt go any further than that. gay people are just people like everyone else. all it takes is to treat them as human, and the treatment is reciprocated.

bottom line: dont be a jerk, and homosexuals will not bother you.

EXACTLY

Hit the nail on the head.

If one gives you "the eye," just look at them like they have three noses, that usually works.

If one gives you "the eye," just look at them like they have three noses, that usually works.

yeah, if you think that you are better than them.
however, most arent egotistical enough to think they are superior to another, based on sexual preference.

No, just telling him that "the eye" is wasted energy here, they get the picture quickly, and move on.

why make somebody uncomfortable?
be genial, and the same results of them not trying to suck on your wee wee come about.

Should I wink? How should I be genial?

Should I wink? How should I be genial?

try explaining that you arent a homosexual. that seems to work.

What if he is?

Butt piracy is not my cup of tea.

im not going to get into that.

i once lived with 2 gay guys....the first night i lived there, i was giving advice and drinking scotch with one of them, and he said "You know, [my name deleted], i really wish you were gay.."

i said: "Well, [his name deleted], i think it's time for me to go to sleep. see you in the morning!"

and that was that. no embarrassment, no rudeness, no funny faces. just blunt honesty.

and it never happened again.

Sorry for not responding to individual posts. I’m going to try and explain myself in further detail now. To do this, please follow me along on a thought experiment. The following hypothetical scenario is exaggerated to make a point. So don’t say, “That’s so unrealistic!” It’s just to make a point.

Let’s say in this hypothetical scenario that there is a group of people who like to flog others on the heads with 2x4s and then brutally screw their limp bodies. These people who like to do this also enjoy having it done to themselves and they do it as a back and forth kind of thing. These floggers/fuckers are a minority. For every 100 people, there is only one flogger/fucker. Everybody involved in this activity is for the most part, consenting. No problems. People should be free to do whatever they like in private, provided it doesn’t affect others directly.

However, there is a problem. Sometimes, these floggers make a mistake and end up flogging/fucking people who are not flogger/fuckers. Non-flogger/fuckers hate being flogged and fucked. They can’t stand it.

“Whoops! I didn’t realize you were a non-flogger/fucker. My bad! If I knew that, I wouldn’t have beaten you over the head with a 2x4 and brutally ravaged your corn hole.”

“Oh yeah? Don’t you think it would have been a good idea to find out and be absolutely sure that I was a flogger/fucker before hand? Yeah, that might have been a good idea. After all, there are way more non-flogger/fuckers than flogger/fuckers.”

“Uhm, well, yes, I suppose you have a point. But who knows! Maybe you are a flogger/fucker and you just never knew it!”

“You’re not getting it. Even though it may be unfathomable for you to understand that the majority of people don’t like being beaten over the head with 2x4s and then ravaged, it doesn’t give you a right to impose your activities on others. You may love it, but we hate it. We can’t stand it. And we’re the majority. You should be bending over backwards to keep this stuff hidden. You see, it’s not that we don’t have respect for you or for you activities. It’s just that we find it disgusting. You can be pretty sure that any given is going to be repulsed by it and you should be respectful of that.

“Think about it this way. Let’s say you and a large group of friends go traveling across the country in a huge tour bus and there are a good 25 of them in the bus. One of them is car-sickness prone. He can’t go very fast in moving cars or he will get sick and be really uncomfortable and miserable. However, you’re on a time limit and it’s important that you get to your destination really quick. It’s more desirable for everybody for you, the bus driver, to get to the destination quickly, which entails driving fast. It causes you some cognitive dissonance, because you care about the well-being of your friend; however, you also care about the well-beings of the majority of your friends. Taking this into account, you speed the bus up.

“However, let’s say that not only your one car-sickness prone friend gets queasy, but also now, four other guys are starting to vomit. Now you’re getting really uneasy, because your fast driving is making people uncomfortable. But you must press on. After a while, however, everybody on the bus, except you is sick. You are really pissed, because you want to keep speeding to get to your destination. However, you’re a person who respects people, so you slow down and even though it means you’re not going to get to the destination on time, everybody else is more comfortable now.

“So you see? In that scenario, you are bending over backwards to please the majority. And that’s really what you should be doing. And that’s exactly how you floggers/fuckers should act around us non-flogger/fuckers. We’re the majority. We are queasy from your fast bus driving. We understand you want to get to the destination on time. But we are the majority. We understand that you think flogging/fucking is great. But we are the majority and we think it is repulsive and it makes us sick. We think it would be great if you could respect that in the same sense that you respected the majority of your car-sick friends in the bus.”

So you see? Heterosexuals are the majority. Most of them find the thought of homosexuality repulsive/repugnant. Homosexuals should be respectful of that, and they should not forget that they are part of a minority. Just like the bus driver.

your comparison is as crude as the floggers you used as an example.
not applicable.

Good, if somewhat messy, analogy of the cultural dynamics - what about biological traits creating homophobia?

So you see? Heterosexuals are the majority. Most of them find the thought of homosexuality repulsive/repugnant. Homosexuals should be respectful of that, and they should not forget that they are part of a minority. Just like the bus driver.

Does that mean that if homosexuals become the majority, you would respect their right to cornhole you, if they deemed it so?

This is some kind of weird homophobic racism.

Does that mean that if homosexuals become the majority, you would respect their right to cornhole you, if they deemed it so?

This is some kind of weird homophobic racism.

:D you said cornhole.

:D you said cornhole.

It was either that or b***f*** :p

Yeh, Sam saying cornhole is pretty funny.

It was either that or b***f*** :p

potayto potahto....sodoyoo, sodomy.

I think the problem of male rape in prison is another reason for homophobia.

potayto potahto....sodoyoo, sodomy.

I was aiming for painful impact.:D

I think the problem of male rape in prison is another reason for homophobia.

Then female rapes should be a good reason for misandry. :rolleyes:

I think the problem of male rape in prison is another reason for homophobia.

im not afraid of being raped in prison...because i dont anticipate going to prison anytime soon.

i know several ex-cons, and they have told me the rape thing is quite exaggerated.

i know several ex-cons, and they have told me the rape thing is quite exaggerated.

Do they mean they enjoyed it?

*puts on his republican hat*

probably. they are criminals, you know.

Does that mean that if homosexuals become the majority, you would respect their right to cornhole you, if they deemed it so?

This is some kind of weird homophobic racism.

First, I don't think you're stupid, Sam. I also respect you. But that's some of the stupidest stuff I've ever heard from anybody.

Does that mean that if homosexuals become the majority, you would respect their right to cornhole you, if they deemed it so?

No, that's not what it means. Nobody has the right to have sex with anyone without consent. Otherwise it's rape.

This is some kind of weird homophobic racism.

First, it's not homophobic. Could you somehow explain how it is homophobic?

Second... racism? How the hell does race have anything to do with this thread?

Yeah. That was probably the dumbest post you've ever made. No offense.

But yeah, I think the word cornhole isn't used enough. Shoot me.

Tbh im not sure you're really disgusted by homosexuals themselves, just the act, and the fact you associate it with any chatting up in a bar the same way straight guys want to get it on with any girl.
If they spoke to you anywhere else I'm pretty sure you wouldn't mind, you must have had gay friends?
I don't think its wrong to be disgusted by the act if you're straight, but if you're disgusted by the people just because of what they are then kinda, its like being disgusted because someones Jewish or something. Although I guess as you're not imposing beliefs and stopping them being gay it can be ok.

francois:

Clearly you either didn't bother reading my previous lengthy reply to you, or you didn't take anything I said on board.

Further conversation with you on this topic is unlikely to be helpful.

francois:

Clearly you either didn't bother reading my previous lengthy reply to you, or you didn't take anything I said on board.

Further conversation with you on this topic is unlikely to be helpful.I would agree. Straights come up with the nastiest stuff! Flogging? Cornhole? Never seen straight porn have you? LOTS of 'cornholing.' Doesn't appeal to any gays I know, the rear door tappin thang, but breeeders seem Obsessed with mansex. fear it! Secretly want it? But, Fran is insecure and reacting in self righteous anger. He needs to point at someone to justify his fear. Someone else can play that monkey. :rolleyes:

francois: Clearly you either didn't bother reading my previous lengthy reply to you, or you didn't take anything I said on board.

Further conversation with you on this topic is unlikely to be helpful.

Ahh, yes, a perfect example of diplomacy at work, huh, James? :D

I wonder if you'll keep that in mind the next time you suggest "diplomacy" for solving some of the world's problems and conflicts??? Ya' think??

Baron Max

Peace to all regardless.

James R.:

You think that if somebody isn't homophobic themselves, they can't possibly comprehend what it is to be homophobic, or what might motivate that?

Certainly. A fear of homosexuals cannot be empathized in the same way that disgust can (which surely you meant, so please do not use misleading words).

I find it interesting that you think that poor men who are occasionally "hit on" against their wills by homosexuals require "empathy" - as if such an act amounts to a devastating affront to their dignity and self-image. Maybe for the men who react in this way, it does. But then, the relevant question to ask is: what, in fact, is it that they find offensive?

The answer is clear: The act of sexual congress with another man. Are you not aware that this can be disgusting?

On the subject of my own sexuality, I have to say that, frankly, what I do in the privacy of my bedroom is none of your business. Moreover, I can't see that it would in any way help make my point to "come out" as either straight or gay here. If I say I'm straight, you'll argue that I can't comment on the motivations of gay people, and that I've probably never been "hit on" by a gay male in an unwelcome way. On the other hand, if I say I'm gay, then you replay you argument that I can't possibly understand what a straight man might think, because I haven't walked a mile in his shoes. Either way, revealing my sexual preference doesn't help me.

Okay.

What I will say, and what should be clear from what I have written here and elsewhere on the matter, I have no problem with people being homosexual. It is an entirely natural human variation. Most people who object do so on religious grounds, whether or not they admit as much overtly. In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are. For that matter, I wonder what your religious views are.

A Mytho-Poetic Romanticist Atheist Pantheist

I.E. I find stories and tales of Indo-European divinities to be an invigorating and culturally appealing framework on aesthetic grounds, but philosophically affirm existence as a whole to fulfill the attributes of God, sans consciousness, and sans religiousity. That is to say, I like myths and epic poetry, but do not believe in deities as object of true worship, and philosophically affirm that existence satisfies the criteria of God (omnipresence, eternity, et cetera).

I am also culturally Catholic, in as much as my family is Catholic and I briefly attended Catholic school as a child.

But then, I think you're about as likely to reveal your religious outlook as I am to reveal my sexual preferences in the current context.

WOOPS! ;)

Also, I actually read that only after I revealed my religion. Which makes this funnier.

Baron Max:

Ahh, yes, a perfect example of diplomacy at work, huh, James?

I wrote a detailed response to francois's original post, and the next post he makes is just a repeat of what he wrote before. There's no point wasting time on somebody who isn't willing to listen; "diplomacy" can only ever work with people willing to engage in dialogue.

Clearly, francois has already made up his mind, so I simply stated the fact that further posting to him by me on the topic is unlikely to be fruitful.


Prince_James:

The answer is clear: The act of sexual congress with another man. Are you not aware that this can be disgusting?

Human sexuality has wide variation. What one person finds disgusting and unthinkable, another may enjoy and desire. Who knows? Maybe some of your sexual proclivities would be "disgusting" to other people.

But you've also missed my main point, which was about double standards.

I am also culturally Catholic, in as much as my family is Catholic and I briefly attended Catholic school as a child.

That fits.

Do the math, Athelwulf, if everyone were homosexual then humankind would be extinct within a generation.

Oh come on. That's the sort of stuff I expect to hear from idiot conservatives. "If we allow them to marry, then EVRY1 WULL WANA GIT MARRIED 2 UH DEWD!!!"

Your comment is a non sequitur. It does not provide any evidence for some evolutionary trait against homosexuality. It does not follow that if this evolutionary trait didn't exist, every example of the species would be consequently homosexual.

Is this just conjecture on your part? If it is, then I'll lay it to rest and forget about this. Just, sometimes it's hard to tell when people are conjecturing and when they're stating something as fact.

???

Allow me to explain.

You said Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders.

This reminded me of a claim that the Eskimo language has about 40 words for "snow". This is one of those bits of trivia that people hear and go "Really? I didn't know that." and accept uncritically. But this claim, as it turns out, is outrageous.

Thus, I concluded that their culture recognizing eight genders sounded outrageous as well. But I may be wrong on this. I just need proof.

Which term would you prefer I use o-wise one?

I don't care, actually. I was just wondering why you were calling it onanism when almost no one does nowadays. Mainly because the term connotes a negative opinion towards masturbation due to the old thought that the Biblical character Onan "spilled his seed" through masturbation. It's now commonly accepted that he actually ejaculated through coitus interruptus.

im not going to get into that.

i once lived with 2 gay guys....the first night i lived there, i was giving advice and drinking scotch with one of them, and he said "You know, [my name deleted], i really wish you were gay.."

i said: "Well, [his name deleted], i think it's time for me to go to sleep. see you in the morning!"

and that was that. no embarrassment, no rudeness, no funny faces. just blunt honesty.

and it never happened again.

Exactly!

It's not hard to do, people. :rolleyes:

Exactly! It's not hard to do, people.

But it IS for some people .....and in your judgemental comment, you disregard the feelings of all of those people. I.e., for all of your supposed tolerance, you ain't very tolerant, are you?

Baron Max

James R.:

Human sexuality has wide variation. What one person finds disgusting and unthinkable, another may enjoy and desire. Who knows? Maybe some of your sexual proclivities would be "disgusting" to other people.

But you've also missed my main point, which was about double standards.

Are all "double standards" truly instance sof the same thing?

Consider, for instance, that it is held to be scandalous for a subordinate to speak disrespectfully to a superior in the military, but such would not be the case in reverse.

That fits.

Note that I have made no comment personally about homosexuality in this thread. Moreover, are you not aware that Catholics are tremendously good at "queering it up"? Priests, Oscar Wilde...

Allow me to explain.
You said Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders.
This reminded me of a claim that the Eskimo language has about 40 words for "snow". This is one of those bits of trivia that people hear and go "Really? I didn't know that." and accept uncritically. But this claim, as it turns out, is outrageous.
Thus, I concluded that their culture recognizing eight genders sounded outrageous as well. But I may be wrong on this. I just need proof.

I have made anthropological studies of the Eskimo and Inuit cultures so I consider there is validity to my comments (although as always I'm open to the dialectic). What I suggest is read this and then make your criticism again (if indeed you can):
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004003.html
The biological construction of sex must include over 70 known types of chromosomal ‘abnormality’ e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47XXY) or Turner’s syndrome (45X or 46XO) or XXY pattern. Gender is a social construction as opposed to a biological one; the fact that 3 genders are socially constructed in the ‘West’ does not mean that other cultures do not use other systems to socially-construct gender.

I cannot find the specific paper at present (and I appreciate that you will want to see this)...does anyone have access to an ATHENS or JSTOR account please?

I don't care, actually. I was just wondering why you were calling it onanism when almost no one does nowadays. Mainly because the term connotes a negative opinion towards masturbation due to the old thought that the Biblical character Onan "spilled his seed" through masturbation. It's now commonly accepted that he actually ejaculated through coitus interruptus.

As you wish to correct my terminology please provide a scientifically-recognisable term to replace ‘onanism.’…masturbation refers to an act not a sexual status…I agree that there may be a better word to describe the sexual status of a masturbator and if, as you maintain, you are able to provide one then please do so. Note: Coitus interruptus refers to withdrawal during intercourse.

francois:

You seem to have double standards. You're quite ok with heterosexual men "hitting" on girls in bars, it seems, trying to pick them up. But when it comes to homosexual men hitting on men in bars to try to pick them up, then you get all offended.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals going to gay bars to pick up homosexuals. That's fine. That's what gay bars are for. Heterosexuals picking up heterosexuals at a non-gay bar is what non-gay bars are for.

I can only assume that you feel somehow threatened by homosexuals showing interest in you.
You can safely assume that.

Yet, at the same time, you can't comprehend that a woman might equally feel threatened by your uninvited interest in her.
I can comprehend that, completely. However, it's different, because heterosexuals are a majority. Not only is heterosexuality more common, but heterosexuality is generally deemed less disgusting. A boorish heterosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual girl is different from a boorish homosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual male. The difference is huge.

You can call it a double standard if it pleases you. But I really don't see it as such. In the third page of the thread I introduced an analogy with the floggers/fuckers and the tour bus driving driving his sick friends across the country.

I agree with you that some women are disgusted by some males who hit on them. But let's compare that to the tour bus analogy. Sure those few women may suffer from these stupid men hitting on them. But those women are like the three or four out of the 25 people on the bus who are sick from the bus driver who is driving fast. The boorish man who is hitting on the poor girls are the bus drivers.

The homosexuals who are hitting on the horrified heterosexuals are like the bus drivers when the bus is full of 25 sick people. And those people are sick because of the speeding. The bus driver continues speeding, ever merrily to his destination, without a care in the world about the 25 people in the bus who are doubling over in their vomit. It's very inconsiderate in my opinion.

If you were that bus driver wouldn't you slow the bus down for your sick friends if it would make them more comfortable? Even though the bus driver is a minority, he should still take his friends' into consideration. It's really simple utilitarianism. You do what makes the most people comfortable.

And yet, you seem quite willing to impose your sexuality on other people. And you also seem quite happy for others to impose their sexuality on you - provided that you welcome their advances.
Well, there is a huge difference between assuming that a given person is a heterosexual and assuming he is a homosexual. Huge difference. If homosexuals were a majority, I would probably still hate being hit on them, but I would probably get used to it and eventually learn to tolerate it out of simple necessity. However, they are not the majority. They should try to make the majority comfortable by inhibiting their sexualities in our presence because it sickens us. It's simple utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism).

So, it seems to me that what you really want is for people to read your mind and magically deduce whether you want sexual attention or not. If they are a "hot chick", then bring it on. But if they are a "hot guy", they should somehow just know that you're not into that.


Lol, no. That's not what I want. I already explained what I want. What I want is really quite reasonable. I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. That's what I want. Let me know if you're still confused. I don't know if I can make it any clearer to you. I have Skype. It might be easier to explain it that way.


If you're claiming that men never make sexual advances to girls - that it's always the other way around - you're living in a fantasyland.
Luckily, I never said or implied anything of that kind.

Males are constantly throwing themselves at women in the hope of a favourable response - much moreso than vice versa.

It's called "trolling." It's a tried and true method.

But you're happy to "put the moves on" any women, I suppose.
Hold on now. You're being hasty and presumptuous. I'm not happy to put the moves on any woman. I'm not a prick. I only hit on women if they are receptive. I can usually tell very quickly in my interactions with women whether or not they are receptive. If they aren't, I don't waste my time or hers.

What if she is homosexual? Shouldn't you check, first, like you expect men to check your sexuality? Tell me - how do you propose that will work? "Hi, I'm Bernard." "Hi, I'm francois." "Just checking, francois - are you homosexual?"

Once again, I think you think it's a double standard. But it's really not. It's because homosexuals don't find heterosexuals nearly as disgusting has heterosexuals find homosexuals. That's reason number one. Reason number two is this: there are way more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Simple utilitarianism. Are you familiar at all with hedonistic calculus?

Why? There's no "violation" between consenting adults.
You took that too literally. I was just writing colorfully. I try not to bore the shit out of my readers. I am courteous. I consider others. I wish some homosexuals were the same way.

And you think that there aren't equally audacious heterosexual men who go around propositioning every woman they see and think might be fair game?
Not really that many guys do that. And yes, those kinds of guys are obnoxious, especially if the attention is unwanted. However, it's not on par with that of homosexuals hitting on heterosexuals. It's really not. I think I've already explained my reasoning to you. I think you can anticipate what I would say to that. If you need it again, let me know.

How hard is it to say "Thanks, but I'm not interested"?
It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me. Or homosexuals that make out in public places. Homosexuals making out in a public place is not the same as heterosexuals making out in a public place. Once again, I don't give a shit about what people do in private. However, in public, I think homosexuals should still be courteous and yielding to the horrified majority.

Well, it might be a 7 to 1 ratio, or something like that. Not terrible odds.
From what I've heard and read, it's more like 1 out of 20, or 5%. They are a minority.


Do the men who proposition women think the same thing?

Get real man. A homosexual man hitting on a heterosexual man is not the same thing as a heterosexual man hitting on a heterosexual woman. If you think it's the same thing, you need to get outside. Take a walk.

I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you.

Once again, I don't want them to avoid me. I've had gay friends. I'm not a homophobe. I've made it clear what I want many times, but you keep ignoring it, because you know that what I want is actually quite reasonable. Let me reiterate: I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. They should be yielding to the horrified majority.

Still confused?

It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me.

Strange, that is exactly my problem with some men.

It offends me. A lot.

What should I do, do you think?

Strange, that is exactly my problem with some men.

It offends me. A lot.

What should I do, do you think?

Taser?

In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are.
I have none. I'm an atheist. My disgust for homosexuals imposing their sexualities on non-homosexuals is natural and based on several bad experiences with homosexuals. It has nothing to do with Leviticus, as I'm sure you would love to think.

Do you think homosexuals have been accepted as a "norm"? I'll bet Prince_James and francois and Baron Max don't think homosexuality is "normal".
Then you would have lost money. That you would so flippantly assume that I would think that homosexuality is not natural or normal speaks volumes about you.

It's funny how some heterosexual people in here believe that they should have the right to assume that other people are heterosexual and hit on them, but that a homosexual may not do the same.

But it IS for some people .....and in your judgemental comment, you disregard the feelings of all of those people. I.e., for all of your supposed tolerance, you ain't very tolerant, are you?

So you're complaining that it's too hard to not make a big scene of things?

"But that's too much work! Waaah!"?

I have made anthropological studies of the Eskimo and Inuit cultures so I consider there is validity to my comments (although as always I'm open to the dialectic). What I suggest is read this and then make your criticism again (if indeed you can):
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004003.html
The biological construction of sex must include over 70 known types of chromosomal ‘abnormality’ e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47XXY) or Turner’s syndrome (45X or 46XO) or XXY pattern. Gender is a social construction as opposed to a biological one; the fact that 3 genders are socially constructed in the ‘West’ does not mean that other cultures do not use other systems to socially-construct gender.

OH!!!

Are we talking about the Eskimoan languages? These languages have eight grammatical genders? I thought you were talking about the culture!

Sorry. Huge misunderstanding. Now it makes a lot more sense. :o

See, I thought you were making a distinction between the language and the culture. It's possible for a culture to recognize genders even if the language doesn't. Cultures, such as that predominant in the US, where English is predominantly spoken are an example. Although, I guess it's a poor one as English still has the vestiges of the Indo-European set of grammatical genders. Chinese is a much better example.

As you wish to correct my terminology please provide a scientifically-recognisable term to replace ‘onanism.’…masturbation refers to an act not a sexual status…I agree that there may be a better word to describe the sexual status of a masturbator and if, as you maintain, you are able to provide one then please do so.

Sexual status? Do you mean sexual orientation? If so, then I suppose you mean "autosexuality". I assumed you were talking about the act. I'm not familiar with sexual statuses.

Note: Coitus interruptus refers to withdrawal during intercourse.

Yes. And that's what Onan did.

It's funny how some heterosexual people in here believe that they should have the right to assume that other people are heterosexual and hit on them, but that a homosexual may not do the same.

Exactly!

'Sexual status? Do you mean sexual orientation? If so, then I suppose you mean "autosexuality". I assumed you were talking about the act. I'm not familiar with sexual statuses.'

Actually 'autosexuality' refers to a sexual desire for oneself...if you insist that I refrain from using the word 'onanism' I will use the term 'autoeroticism' instead.
Interesting topic...so how did 'autosexuality' emerge then? And what does this tell us about homophobic disgust?

I still don't know what you mean by sexual "status". We seem to be going on different tangents. I'm trying to communicate, but it seems you aren't trying back. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I know what autosexuality is, but apparently it's not the word you want. Tell me what a sexual status is, and maybe I can know what you're talking about.

And again, I don't care if you call it onanism. I was merely asking if you were talking about masturbation. A request to clarify.

I would reject any Freudian notion that homophobia is entirely due to the suppression of homosexual tendencies; I think that there is an evolutionary trait that prevents males from being attracted to other males...if this trait didn't exist then reproduction would stop.
Primates express all manner of sexual and social groupings and to my experience this is mirrored in human populations...therefore I would regard homosexuality as entirely natural - disgust being culturally-derived but as a by-product of a trait offering fitness in the environment.

This was my original point (above)...and below I outline my position regarding homosexuality as a natural phenomenon...

What we have in common is that we are both human, I see homosexuality as just an entirely natural phenomena as heterosexuality or bisexuality or oninism.

The above is the statement where I first refer to onanism; and this is the relevant part of your response, below.

I don't care, actually. I was just wondering why you were calling it onanism when almost no one does nowadays.

No-one apart from me?

And again, I don't care if you call it onanism. I was merely asking if you were talking about masturbation. A request to clarify.

Autosexuality is a sexual desire for oneself; autoeroticism is the word I will use to replace onanism.

No-one apart from me?

Apparently, yes.

Autosexuality is a sexual desire for oneself; autoeroticism is the word I will use to replace onanism.

Fine then. But you still haven't said what a sexual status is.

Usual sexual practice.

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off. I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them. It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it. It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman. I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have. One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for $10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled—completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did.

Now, let’s ignore the homosexual’s lack of social graces. Let’s say he was just hitting on him and he didn’t actually ask him for a blow job for $10. It’s still wrong because he was assuming he was gay. It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males. Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.” No. Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments. We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it. I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you. While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either. Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

Am I wrong here?

It's not wrong to be disgusted with homosexuality, I find homosexuality disgusting, but I'm not disgusted at homosexuals.

Just because we don't all have sex in the same way, it does not make these people less human. In fact, the only difference might be in the bedroom, so I don't really think it applies to much.

The only rare situations where it might apply, is in odd situations where I might have to compete with a lesbian female for a woman. Or the odd situation where perhaps a gay male might compete with a female for a man. These situations are rare enough so as to not matter a lot to me.

Besides, I have to compete with a lot of single guys on the planet already for women. It's not a big deal to me that I have to compete with lesbians too, although it does make it more difficult on me.

On the other hand, the more gay males we have the easier it is on me. So we should encourage bisexual males to become full homosexuals if we are straight males. Straight females should encourage bisexual females to become lesbian, simply because it's in the best interest of the straights to have more gays, and if bisexuals choose gay (because bisexuals are the only ones who can choose), thats better for me I say, and better for my straight counterpart.

Just because we don't all have sex in the same way, it does not make these people less human. In fact, the only difference might be in the bedroom, so I don't really think it applies to much.

Pretty much.

The only rare situations where it might apply, is in odd situations where I might have to compete with a lesbian female for a woman. Or the odd situation where perhaps a gay male might compete with a female for a man. These situations are rare enough so as to not matter a lot to me.

Especially if the target woman or man is straight. Or gay.

Besides, I have to compete with a lot of single guys on the planet already for women. It's not a big deal to me that I have to compete with lesbians too, although it does make it more difficult on me.

You're not competing with lesbians, because they're trying to get the women who are interested in other women. You couldn't get those women anyway.

So we should encourage bisexual males to become full homosexuals if we are straight males. Straight females should encourage bisexual females to become lesbian, simply because it's in the best interest of the straights to have more gays, and if bisexuals choose gay (because bisexuals are the only ones who can choose), thats better for me I say, and better for my straight counterpart.

I see your train of thought behind persuading bisexual men to only have homosexual relationships, but I don't get why you'd want to do the same with bisexual women. There would be more for you if they were instead persuaded to be straight. Of course, this would make things unduly hard for gay women.

Sam
Strange, that is exactly my problem with some men.

It offends me. A lot.

What should I do, do you think?
Embrace your lesbianism, but then make sure not to hit on straight women.

“
Originally Posted by francois
Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.
”
You rank people giving you the eye above people dry-humping you? Maybe you meant "and lastly"?

Strangely, yes. I've been groped, hit on, and stared at by homosexual men. And I think getting the eye is the worst.

Like this one time I got groped it was by this homosexual whom I know. It was at school. We weren't really friends, per se. But we were on a friendly basis with each other. He is openly gay and I knew he was gay. No problems.

However, one day, I was bending over to get a CD from my bag, and he couldn't resist apparently. He grabbed my ass. And I can completely understand my brother's friend at the bar, who was just completely shocked and stunned and didn't know what to do. I was just shocked and appalled for a good 20 seconds or so. After that, however, I composed myself and calmly told him to never do it again and that if he tried to do it again, I would likely beat the shit out of him. Overall, it was a pretty bad experience. But it wasn't the worst. The worst is getting stared at.

Like this one time I was working. And this homosexual who was buying something was staring at me, giving me the creepiest, depraved smile I've ever seen. Words can't describe how it made me feel. All I can say is that it made me feel really dirty. I felt like I needed to take a shower. I felt like I needed to peel off the first layer of skin cells that were infected by the treacherous photons which bounced off my pure, virgin skin and into this asshole's depraved pupils. Worst experience ever. This happened to me a few weeks ago in the bar. It wasn't quite as bad, but it still made me uncomfortable.

I have a suggestion.

You have a right not to be hunted down like you're a mere sex object, but at the same time it's a good idea to be considerate of some people's feelings. So, decide what sort of actions are minor, and which are totally out of line. Learn to let go of the minor stuff. I'd say catching someone just staring at you as if you're a hot piece of beef is fairly minor. After all, can you blame them? You probably do the same with a hot girl.

As for the major stuff, work out a three-strikes warning system. For example, a good way to handle your gay friend groping you is thus: The first time, say "I don't like that. Please don't do it again" while looking him in the eye. Don't be mean, and try not to sound murderously mad when you say it. Just calmly say it. He should get the message. If he doesn't, and he gropes you again, then you can say "Do that again and I'll punch you" or something. He can consider himself warned. If he doesn't get it and does it again, then, well... yeah.

How does that sound?

If I said I was a nymphomaniac lesbian stuck in a man's body...would this be disgusting?

If I said I was a nymphomaniac lesbian stuck in a man's body...would this be disgusting?

Depends on who you talk to. There's a wide range of fetishes out there. Someone just might find it incredibly erotic.

But generally would people of a particular gender find that disgusting?

They may just perceive it as a joke and laugh accordingly. But I can't speak for all men, or for women.

In the context of the thread: do heterosexual women find lesbians disgusting (or not) for the same reason(s) that heterosexual men might find homosexual men disgusting (or not)?
The answer to this (if there is one) would suggest whether there is an evolutionary basis to 'disgust' in the circumstances.

do heterosexual women find lesbians disgusting (or not) for the same reason(s) that heterosexual men might find homosexual men disgusting (or not)?

What are the reasons (some) men find homosexuality disgusting, do you think?

I've outlined my reasons in the thread.

I've outlined my reasons in the thread.

Well, I went back and had a look. You made a one-line reference to male rape in prisons, and very early on you said this:

I would reject any Freudian notion that homophobia is entirely due to the suppression of homosexual tendencies; I think that there is an evolutionary trait that prevents males from being attracted to other males...if this trait didn't exist then reproduction would stop.

Primates express all manner of sexual and social groupings and to my experience this is mirrored in human populations...therefore I would regard homosexuality as entirely natural - disgust being culturally-derived but as a by-product of a trait offering fitness in the environment.

So, that's all then?

Oops -you missed these bits too...now with the ability to put my statements in context and not have them selectively examined we can answer your query...

But that doesn't account for an evolutionary trait designed to safeguard against extinction through lack of reproduction. We can't feel ego-boosted because nature didn't design us that way...

"Minorities with a history of repression and suppression often feel that it is necessary to stake out their claim as legitimate members of society."

However, this reinforces notions of 'otherness' - surely it is better to accept the fact that you have been accepted as a norm and get on without maintaining a separate identity from the norm.

Until 1984 homosexuality was classified as a mental illness in the UK...thats right 1984.
Whilst, as I propose, homophobia is an evolutionary trait to avoid extinction, UK citizens are obliged by law not to discriminate and in most cases homosexuality is accepted as a cultural norm, albeit not a biological one in all cases.

There lots of gay and straight animals...so whats the fuss about?

That would lead to extinction of the species...perhaps things would balance out when an equilibrium of a ecologically-sustainable population was reached.

Yeah...good point and it should be pointed out that many cultures have more than two genders...e.g. Eskimos have 8

"we're vastly outnumbered but appaently still scare the shit out of people."

This is just a self-depreciating myth...no homosexual should be victimised in my view and that applies to those who espouse a victim culture.

I can emphasise with your situation, being someone who uses science as a tool to explain the universe - I too am subject to this type of hatred...but I am not homosexual. What we have in common is that we are both human, I see homosexuality as just an entirely natural phenomena as heterosexuality or bisexuality or oninism. But I also think that aversion to homosexual activity is a biological trait and entirely natural too.
I think all the above is true in an evolutionary context.
By the way I have been to many events, workplaces and social settings where I have been in the company of homosexuals and bisexuals and heterosexuals and have enjoyed all without comparison.

What you say is true...there is discrimination in some places...my experience is of the UK and things are pretty liberal here also in the eyes of the law. I'm sure discrimination exists elsewhere and my point in introducing evolutionary psychology was to examine what the root of prejudice might be.

In response to the initial thread question: Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals? I would say no (due to an evolutionary trait to avoid extinction) - a more revealing question is 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a homosexual act?' or more revealingly 'Is it wrong to be disgusted by a sexual act?'

Do the math, Athelwulf, if everyone were homosexual then humankind would be extinct within a generation.

"I also ask for some evidence of this. I suppose I can't discount it, but it does seem to me outrageous to claim Eskimo culture recognizes eight genders, mostly because I know the claim about the many Eskimo words for "snow" is also outrageous."

???

"Onanism"? The years-outdated term for masturbation?'

Which term would you prefer I use o-wise one?

Good, if somewhat messy, analogy of the cultural dynamics - what about biological traits creating homophobia?

I think the problem of male rape in prison is another reason for homophobia.

Peace to all regardless.

I have made anthropological studies of the Eskimo and Inuit cultures so I consider there is validity to my comments (although as always I'm open to the dialectic). What I suggest is read this and then make your criticism again (if indeed you can):
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004003.html
The biological construction of sex must include over 70 known types of chromosomal ‘abnormality’ e.g. Klinefelter’s syndrome (47XXY) or Turner’s syndrome (45X or 46XO) or XXY pattern. Gender is a social construction as opposed to a biological one; the fact that 3 genders are socially constructed in the ‘West’ does not mean that other cultures do not use other systems to socially-construct gender.

I cannot find the specific paper at present (and I appreciate that you will want to see this)...does anyone have access to an ATHENS or JSTOR account please?



As you wish to correct my terminology please provide a scientifically-recognisable term to replace ‘onanism.’…masturbation refers to an act not a sexual status…I agree that there may be a better word to describe the sexual status of a masturbator and if, as you maintain, you are able to provide one then please do so. Note: Coitus interruptus refers to withdrawal during intercourse.

'Sexual status? Do you mean sexual orientation? If so, then I suppose you mean "autosexuality". I assumed you were talking about the act. I'm not familiar with sexual statuses.'

Actually 'autosexuality' refers to a sexual desire for oneself...if you insist that I refrain from using the word 'onanism' I will use the term 'autoeroticism' instead.
Interesting topic...so how did 'autosexuality' emerge then? And what does this tell us about homophobic disgust?

This was my original point (above)...and below I outline my position regarding homosexuality as a natural phenomenon...



The above is the statement where I first refer to onanism; and this is the relevant part of your response, below.



No-one apart from me?



Autosexuality is a sexual desire for oneself; autoeroticism is the word I will use to replace onanism.

Usual sexual practice.

If I said I was a nymphomaniac lesbian stuck in a man's body...would this be disgusting?

But generally would people of a particular gender find that disgusting?

In the context of the thread: do heterosexual women find lesbians disgusting (or not) for the same reason(s) that heterosexual men might find homosexual men disgusting (or not)?
The answer to this (if there is one) would suggest whether there is an evolutionary basis to 'disgust' in the circumstances.

I've outlined my reasons in the thread.

OK my point is that if every male were homosexual and didn't reproduce then humans would become extinct; conversely overpopulation might also cause extinction. Therefore traits that encourage and discourage homosexuality and heterosexuality are selected for or against in the environment.
Therefore disgust at homosexual acts might be a natural biological trait aimed at ensuring fitness of the species; as attraction to homosexual acts might be a natural biological trait aimed at ensuring fitness of the species.

My ethological and primate studies have taught me that many types of grouping and sexual practices occur in the biological world and we humans (whether gay, straight or any angle inbetween) are no different.

Hope this clarifies my position. Happy to answer any more questions...

I have a question.

Why do you think that if there were no biological trait ensuring that we're disgusted at homosexuality, everyone would be homosexual?

I don't think that.

Then why bother stating that if everyone was homosexual, our species would die out?

Athelwulf - you obviously haven't thought through the logic of what you have said....and you have selectively misquoted me to cover your mistake. This is not reasonable.

This is what I said (#103): "...if every male were homosexual and didn't reproduce then humans would become extinct..."

This is what you claim I said (#106): "Then why bother stating that if everyone was homosexual, our species would die out?"

Spot the difference ("...and didn't reproduce...")? I'm sure other forum users will.

Statement #103 is a truism (New Reproductive Technologies aside).

You are attempting to manipulate data to fit your perception of truth...please think through the logic of what you say and check your facts first...really its an embarrassing waste of time.

Um, no. I think my statement still stands. I was referring to your entire statement, even if I didn't repeat the whole thing. It seems like you're just trying to avoid my question.

But fine. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. So let's try again:

Why do you think that if there were no biological trait to make us disgusted at homosexuality, everyone would be homosexual and would not breed?

I am saying this because I think you need to rethink your logic. Think about non sequiturs.

Oops -you missed these bits too...

No, I didn't miss them. I just don't see them as adding anything extra to what I quoted from you before.

Never mind. Let's look at your summary:

OK my point is that if every male were homosexual and didn't reproduce then humans would become extinct; conversely overpopulation might also cause extinction. Therefore traits that encourage and discourage homosexuality and heterosexuality are selected for or against in the environment.

I partially agree with this. Obviously, a gene that made everybody homosexual would not survive in a population, since the species would die out. That much is obvious. However, that does not mean that there can't be a gene, for example, that makes a certain percentage of the population homosexual. I don't think we disagree about this.

On the other hand, I don't think there are any likely to be any genes which expressly limit population. This is also borne out by the fact that the current human population is continually increasing. But this is another discussion, off topic here.

Therefore disgust at homosexual acts might be a natural biological trait aimed at ensuring fitness of the species; as attraction to homosexual acts might be a natural biological trait aimed at ensuring fitness of the species.

The problem is that there are no exclusively "homosexual" acts. Every sexual act performed by homosexual people is also performed by at least some heterosexual people. At the very least, this tells us that not every heterosexual person is disgusted by such acts.

My ethological and primate studies have taught me that many types of grouping and sexual practices occur in the biological world and we humans (whether gay, straight or any angle inbetween) are no different.

No argument there.

James, do you agree that it's a non sequitur to start with the fact that if everyone was homosexual and didn't reproduce, we'd go extinct, and with that conclude that we must be biologically inclined to be disgusted at homosexuality?

Athelwulf:

Yes, I agree.

If everyone ate too much dairy products and died from too much cholesterol, then we'd also go extinct. But that doesn't mean we're all disgusted by cheese, milk and eggs.

the argument above would mean that homosexuality is an inheritable trait?

Ah yes, the "gay gene."

Homosexuality is just a behavior, and people change their behaviors.

Athenwulf - go and study primate groupings and then ask yourself why are there gay animals?

Ah yes, the "gay gene."

Homosexuality is just a behavior, and people change their behaviors.

unless you are homosexual yourself, you cannot say that for certain.

edit: posted a split second after zen..sorry for confusion.

#106 Athenwulf "Maybe I wasn't as clear as I thought I was." Later in post..."Think about non sequiturs."
Have this conversation with yourself first.

#109 James R...The fact that you partially agree with the point is a basis for further discussion...but there are exclusively homosexual acts...those involving two (or more) men...although granted the physical mechanics are the same.

I want to add at this point that this is a thread in the Ethics, Morality and Justice forum...the reason I have raised a genetic basis as a possibility for disgust is that if we understand why disgust occurs then we can educate people as to theor motivations and stop discrimination against homosexuals.

To doubters of a genetic basis for disgust think about this:
Shit or dead bodies smell bad (to most) - but this is not cultural and it is nothing inparticular to do with the shit and carcasses themselves - it is to do with the micro-organisms that cause disease.
People to whom shit and dead bodies do not seem disgusting will most likely have died from associated diseases and failed to reproduce.

Starting to make sense now?

Can you say moral indignation?

Can you say moral indignation?

already been covered.

Who thinks homosexuals should be courteous/yielding to the horrified majority? Who agrees with the main gist of what I said in this thread?

the argument above would mean that homosexuality is an inheritable trait?

It is possible that homosexuality is partly genetic. I have read theories that a "switch" gene may be involved. If that is the case, then the figure of about 1 in 8 people being homosexual makes sense.

Ah yes, the "gay gene."

Homosexuality is just a behavior, and people change their behaviors.

Yeah, like being tall is just a behaviour, and some people lose their legs in accidents and become shorter.

...there are exclusively homosexual acts...those involving two (or more) men...

Some heterosexual women have sex with two or more men - sometimes even at the same time!

I never thought I'd need to say this to a guy, but maybe you should consider watching more porn. :)

I want to add at this point that this is a thread in the Ethics, Morality and Justice forum...the reason I have raised a genetic basis as a possibility for disgust is that if we understand why disgust occurs then we can educate people as to theor motivations and stop discrimination against homosexuals.

Fair enough. I just don't think you've established your case. At the very least, the disgust you speak of seems confined to a subset of heterosexual males.

Who thinks homosexuals should be courteous/yielding to the horrified majority?

You merely assume there is a horrified majority.

Assuming I'm right and there is, in fact, a horrified majority... should they be yielding? If I'm right about the horrified majority.

Some heterosexual women have sex with two or more men - sometimes even at the same time!
I never thought I'd need to say this to a guy, but maybe you should consider watching more porn. :)

Why? Is this where you get your information?

Fair enough. I just don't think you've established your case. At the very least, the disgust you speak of seems confined to a subset of heterosexual males.

But perhaps examining disgust in general might give us some insight into the specifics....

francois:

Assuming I'm right and there is, in fact, a horrified majority... should they be yielding?

Yielding to... what exactly?

You mean - should the "horrified majority" have a right to demand that homosexual people verify that they are homosexual before approaching them in the same manner that they regularly approach women?

That sounds less like "yielding" to me and more like imposing your will on other people.

zenbabelfish

...maybe you should consider watching more porn. :)

Why? Is this where you get your information?

See the little smiley face next to my comment?

For future reference, when people add things like that it often indicates a sense of humour. Perhaps you ought to consider developing one yourself...

I note that you ignored my substantive point, too.

Substantive point? with or without smilies?

francois:



Yielding to... what exactly?

You mean - should the "horrified majority" have a right to demand that homosexual people verify that they are homosexual before approaching them in the same manner that they regularly approach women?

That sounds less like "yielding" to me and more like imposing your will on other people.
I'm having difficulty knowing whether or not you're being intentionally difficult. I'm saying yes, they should know whether or not I'm a homosexual before making advances on me. I'm saying they should try not to be so flamboyant in public. I'm saying gay pride parades are stupid. I'm saying they shouldn't kiss in public. I don't think they should necessarily inhibit their lisps. But they should be reasonable and courteous to those who are disgusted by homosexuality. They shouldn't pretend like heterosexuals aren't there. That's what I mean.

James/Athelwulf - I've just been to look at the sunlight on th