: : : On the one hand you can change religion, your saying you cant change sexuality.: : Tell that to red-blooded father-of-two Oscar Wilde.
: No I'm telling you that if your naturalist argument is correct instances like Oscar Wilde couldnt happen, bisexuality couldn't happen, that would seem to re-enforce what I was saying.
No. That's not what I'm saying.
The majority of the higher primates are bisexual; viz they are capable of responding sexually to either sex.
You can choose not to respond to homosexual stimulation, just as you can choose not to respond to heterosexual stimulation; but the telltale physiological reactions are still there; genital state change, momentary pupil dilation.
We still respond to such signals, whether we are consciously aware of it or not.
We are bisexual; but that does not mean we have to be either monosexual or bisexual; we can be asexual.
*That* is where any 'choice' lies; whether or not to act on any sexual stimuli; not in what you find attractive in the first place.
(It's similar in a way to diet; we are all omnivores by evolution; we are capable of digesting either meat or plants; but some people choose not to eat meat. Even the most die-hard vegan is capable of digesting meat, even if they find it repulsive to even think of eating it.)
: : On what evidence do you base your claims, Lark?
: I'm not caliming anthing I was just reiterating your position and explaining the logical conclusions dont balance out.
No; as I hope I've made clear, you aren't describing my position.
: : Lab tests revealed that 86% of subjects show a greater or lesser sexual response to same-sex stimuli; all the evidence suggests that bisexuality is the closest thing to a 'natural state' in the human case.
: I dont understand exactly what your saying here, when I hear of these type of tests I often try to reflect on my own experiences to see if they are just nonsense, now going by my experiences, never having felt any attraction to other males, presumably I'm no exception or freak, this is a rubbish test or claim.
Drop the word 'freak'. We are all people. We are all individuals.
(...I'm not!)
To say that anyone is 'better' than anyone else because of anything they had no choice over is somewhat unegalitarian!
So you've never felt attracted to men. No problem.
Saying that no-one should feel attracted to other men, though, that's a big problem; especially given the medical evidence.
: :It comes down to where your preferences lie; and is no more a matter of choice than your favourite colour.
: Choice, LIFESTYLE CHOICE, a vindication of my view I think and I thank you.
No, Lark.
Let's recap my position;
The vast majority of people exhibit sexual response to same-sex stimuli, whether they are aware of it or not.
(You may or may not be among them. This doesn't alter your absolute status as a human being in any way; it doesn't make you 'normal' or 'abnormal' - 'normality' is a subjective social construct. Your own personal experience is irrelevant here.)
If they have a 'choice', it lies in whether they take action to express their sexuality in homosexual ways; they have no choice about having those feelings in the first place.
If you're hungry, you can choose to eat. You can't choose not to feel hungry in the first place.
: : Is it more 'natural' to be Prod or Catholic? - if you just went by what the majority in N.I. said, you'd say Catholic, simply because of the balance of the human environment. If you're a Catholic, Catholicism is the right way to be. Does this give Catholics the right to burn Protestant churches?
: I think you've got the roles of catholic and protestant reversed there.
I wasn't talking of real incidents, Lark; the question I was asking was; do the majority have the right to oppress the minority because the minority are perceived as 'abnormal'?
You're saying that there is a 'right' way to be. I'm not; my position is that the 'right' way to be is an entirely subjective concept; and depends upon your environment as much as anything else.
: : You can 'change' your sexuality; insofar as you can become celibate, or just exercise monosexuality (i.e. either hetero- or homosexuality).
: Right earlier you said that bisexuality was the only natural condition and it was a matter of choice now your changing your line of thinking, do you see the contradiction?
I'm not contradicting myself, Lark.
Bisexuality is the 'natural' condition for the majority of people. This does not mean that everyone has to be actively bisexual; or even actively sexual.
You can choose not to indulge in homosexual behaviour, just as you can choose not to eat meat; it doesn't alter the basic fact that you can indulge in homosexual behaviour if you want.
: : : If homosexuals are a distinct brand of beings to heterosexuals are not sadists etc. a distinct brand also
: : No; see below. Sadists can be either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual; it's more of an attitude to power in sex than a sexual orientation as such.
: Sexuality is all the one thing, these types of behaviour are, if I follow your thinking varients of sexuality.
Yes - they are subsets of sexuality, and apply equally to homo- and hetero-sexual people.
: : : I'm prepared to tolerate homosexuals because I believe in self-government but I wont accept them as any more normal or of a distinct status to the likes of sadists or masochists etc.
: : Why? Give me a good, sound reason, Lark.
: Because if they homosexual lobby is prepared to advocate their behaviour as natural, yet hetero-advocacy is phobic, intolerant, sexist etc. there must be a counter force putting the alternative position or view. This doesnt require violence etc.
Lark, this is *exactly* what White Power and New Lad types say.
No-one is suggesting that gay groups are out to turn people into raging queens and corrupt kiddies; if you're aware of gay leanings, they usually manifest themselves by the age of 15.
As you and I both know, blacks and women have both been oppressed for hundreds of years; and they still form a tiny minority of 'boss' roles in our society; yet there are large numbers of people saying "Hey! This has gone far enough!". People like Frenchy...
The fact remains, blacks are still the largest single group in prisons; they are still more likely to be passed over for jobs, stopped by the cops and die violent deaths - 35 years after the Civil Rights movement. Women are still underpaid and unequally treated after 100 years of feminism. Prejudices like that take over a century to erase; the Gay Lib fight has only been going 30 years...
Until people can go for a job, a mortgage or a drink equally, whether black, white, male, female, gay or straight, the fight will not be over.
There's nothing wrong with being proud of being who you are; as long as you don't justify it by saying that the opinions of those who disagree with you are worthless.
I'm white, English and middle-class; I'm not ashamed of this; but I don't think that anyone else is 'better' or 'worse' than I am.
: If a child going through puberty, with all that confusion, approaches you and says I think I'm attracted to the same sex, if your convinced of the homo-supremist position your immediate reaction must be that's fantastic, lets have a party etc. Now position would be are you sure, think this out, there are a lot of pressures and influences on you.
I'd say;
"Wait until you're 22/23 - you can't really make a final decision about what you are until you've finished growing up both physically and mentally. It doesn't ultimately matter to me whether you're gay, bi or straight - that is for you, and you alone, to sort out."
If they were a friend or kid of mine I'd add;
"Whatever you choose, you can count on my continued support as long as you are happy with yourself and don't exploit others."
- I do not believe that any of the major sexual orientations are 'superior' to the others.
: : Most of the 'fetishes' are more the expression of power-relationships than expressions of love between equals; they rely on a 'doer' and a 'victim'; a 'master/mistress' and a 'slave'.
: Whatever you say, is homosexuality devoid of such things? Apart from trying to become the dominant media etc.
: : Now, both heterosexual and homosexual sex can be 'exploitative' - the one-night-stand is mutual itch-scratching in most cases; but there is no measureable medical or psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual love.
: This exploitative element is good?
It can be good, yes. A no-strings-attached one night stand can be a great ego boost and do no lasting harm to anyone. It doesn't mean anything apart from a brief bit of pleasure - but the same can be said of most art and music.
: Is it not more common among homosexuals?
No. Definitely not. It's harder to be public about a long-term homosexual relationship than a heterosexual one, largely because of the revulsion a lot of people have for such behaviour; so most of the long-term homosexual relationships remain secret to preserve the feelings of family and friends and the job prospects of those concerned.
(MI5 include sexual orientation in their security vetting for potential employees; they will not employ people they feel to be at risk of public exposure by a same-sex liasion.)
: I would find it hard to believe it isnt when their culture, media, clubs, pubs and societies all revolve around the same issue sexual relationships, specifically sexual gratification.
Lark, the vast majority of mass media, clubs, advertising and the like all revolve around sex; remember the adage; 'sex sells'...
Popular culture is founded on sex. That's everyone's popular culture; yours, mine, the world's.
To quote the anarchist and biologist Alex Comfort in his famous book The Joy of Sex; "All dancing in pairs looks towards sexual intercourse; in this, the Puritans were dead right"
(Read more of his stuff; he's (in)famous for TJOS, but is a fairly eloquent anarchist in his own right. See "Against Power and Death: the Anarchist Articles and Pamphlets of Alex Comfort." - publ. Freedom Press 1994.)
: : The only differences are societally and/or religiously based.
: I resent the implication of brainwashing there, I suppose I'm secretly afraid that I may be gay or something aswell?
I'm not trying to imply anything of the sort, Lark.
I don't know if you're 'secretly gay' or not; nor do I care.
We are all the products of our human and natural environments; you, me, everybody; if there's 'brainwashing' gone on, I'm as affected as you.
The medical evidence is clear; the majority of people are capable of being bisexual if they so choose.
Since there's nothing physically stopping most adults from indulging if they want, the only possible reason that more of them don't behave in a bisexual manner is conditioning; that they have been taught that same-sex affection is wrong.
That's not a personal accusation against anyone; it's just the way things are at the moment.
Again, as a fellow anarchist, how would you defend imposing your moral code on everybody else?
Farinata.
"We may eventually come to realize that chastity is no more a virtue than malnutrition." - Dr. Alex Comfort.
