There have been enough women fuckers among men and men fuckers among women to let the race survive. That Homosexuals still do exist must mean that there are a strong drift in us to look for a mate and that there is some kind of attraction to the same sex rooted in us. Reading the first dialogues is like reading about a Gay Wunderland. My thought, always having been boringly hererosexual is that the reach out to a person as different to you as a person from another sex is not what you want if you are homo. You want one that is more like yourself. Just what pops up in my head.

Purely mechanical, both holes are attrative for both partners. Its funnny that the shit hole can give so pleasurable feelings. And that is from a deeeply hetero guy.

Research was done a very long time ago with rats. Space and food were at a premium. Homosexuality developed over time as natures way of controlling population.

The challenge, it seems to me, is to establish a good, even if tentative and subject to revision, understanding of the subject - any subject - as a preliminary step in thinking about it. So what, exactly, is homosexual? Sounds like a stupid question - everyone "knows" what a homosexual is, and hetero-, lesbian, bi-, and God-help-us non-binary, whatever that is. But just go ahead and try. I had co-workers, a counselor and a psychologist, both very gay, and they agreed they couldn't define it. Perhaps as with the DSM in many of its diagnoses it's defined as the presence of a number of behaviours. Behaviours? Is that it?

Which suggests that like a lot of things, what it is devolves to choice and consensus. And if that, how can it be stable across cultures, even across a iifetime? And of course it isn't. Or is it? Admittedly there are any number of informal tests, but those usually to classify individuals within and against a social background.

Anyone care to try? should be simple. What, exactly, is (a) homosexual?

Which suggests that like a lot of things, what it is devolves to choice and consensus. — tim wood

Err, what? So you agree with the concept of "conversion therapy"? Because that would be the logical conclusion from your claim.

I don't have a clue why homosexuals exist except as a possible, ergo prepared in all its gastronomic splendor, dish in the evolutionary cookbook.

What should spike our interest, methinks, is the trend in the number of homosexuals.

If the graph reveals a downward pointing arrow then homosexuals are a dying breed and are being selected against, probably earmarked for extinction.

If the graph displays an arrow that's oriented to the upper right hand corner of the page then homosexuals have an evolutionary advantage, have an edge over their heterosexual "rivals".

The third possibility is the flat graph - with the population of homosexuals remaining steady, neither rising nor declining. In this case, being attracted to the same sex is neither a pro nor a con as far as reproductive success is concerned.

I think what people are forgetting is that many people are basically "passable" for the other gender in the right clothes/or with makeup/or other factors (shaved, etc).

Not every woman or man has a.. notable chest. Or well-defined chin or vice-versa. Some women are muscular or otherwise have large arms. And some men do not.

Some men have soft facial features and some women have strong, defined features.

Some men don't take life too seriously and have playful, submissive, some would say "girlish" personalities whereas some women are quite the opposite.

Bearing these facts in mind along with the idea that bisexuality is (or at least was- it's definitely spoken of less) still "a thing" .. it kind of casts a new light on the whole debate.

And if it doesn't you should ask yourself why.

Some dudes with soft features (not too pronounced chin vs. a well-defined female's) look pretty hot in drag with their hair done. That's not a statement that reflects anything of myself they are simply indistinguishable from a very attractive female model. The chin/jawline is usually a giveaway. Some females with short hair/baggy clothing do pass for men as well. I recall an instance where I was embarrassed to mistake one for the other but saved myself by saying "sorry I don't have my glasses on" :grin:

Seems like a social construct based on general human sexuality made into a big deal for unknown purposes.

I just think the motive's of people who advocate for the idea of homosexuality while remaining silent about the idea of bisexuality should be looked into a bit further.

I gather you're suggestible.

Err, what? So you agree with the concept of "conversion therapy"? Because that would be the logical conclusion from your claim. — Derukugi

Thinking that there is an element of choice to sexual orientation doesn’t entail acceptance of conversion therapy. There are lots of things that are choices that it would be wrong to try to psychologically condition people into choosing differently.

What, exactly, is (a) homosexual? — tim wood

Why need to be exact? A guy that comes out of the cupboard an admit that he prefers to fuck guys, thats exact enough for me. I only know homo guys and this has been kind of the process. Guess lesbos are pretty much the same.

The perennial unanswerable question.

Some? many? most? all? humans are subject to "polymorphous perversity" -- capable of deriving sexual pleasure in various ways, at different times, if the opportunity is presented, if the flesh is willing, if social mores are not overwhelming. So there is that -- quite apart from "what causes homosexuality". I don't know what causes homosexuality.

Mixing Kinsey with Freud, it seems that a majority of people are polymorphously perverse, and that a substantial minority are exclusively heterosexual. A small minority of the male population (1% - 2%) are exclusively homosexual--they neither have sex with women nor do they / have they ever wanted to.

As per @Tim Wood, So what, exactly, is homosexual? Maybe the majority of people are, per @Outlander bisexual. That's what Kinsey found, at least if you include every sex act a person performs between 18 and 88.

What's this? I think you mean why do humans have sexual attraction to their own gender? Homosexuals exist for the same reason that heterosexuals exist, earth's environment contains the resources to nourish the kind of life we are. Why do people fuck silicone objects?

The need to even ask such a question is strange. Would be hard for me to imagine the Greeks or Romans asking this kind of question, as though there were something abnormal here (see silicone question for abnormality). It's a matter of sexual preference in attraction.

he prefers to fuck guys — Ansiktsburk

Preferring to fuck guys is certainly a critical part of what a homosexual is (like 90%) but it isn't all of it. It's also who you like to spend the most time with, how you relate to other men in a social way, and how you fit yourself into the world.

Does being gay mean being more... "artistic", "sensitive", and so on? Based on my 74 years of experience as an exclusively gay man, the stereotypically artistic, sensitive, highly emotional homosexual is mostly baloney. Yes, there are gay men who fit that description, but most don't, and of course there are some straight men who do, though most don't.

Are gay men more promiscuous than straight men? Yes. So, AIDS definitely dropped a monkey wrench into the gears of the orgy factory. With appropriate precautions the good times continue to roll, but not quite in as inhibited a manner as before. New diseases require new responses. Is one supposed to wear a mask while getting a blow job in the park?

Don't gays have more testosterone than straights (including females)? There is a Jungian enantiodromia going on with homosexuals. It is as natural as birth control. Asexuality is the way out. Gay and heterosexuals are both unconscious about sex, or maybe too conscious...I don't know.

Sure, now you (think) you know what he is, and you have a label. But that wasn't the question. And the question is a bit of a trap, because while some cases may seem easily resolvable, that does not touch the general question. Nor does your test work all the time. Men in prison sometimes resort to homosexual behaviour, sometimes called "gay for stay" - are those men homosexual? Or the bi- guy. Is he bi- or gay? There seems but one and one only necessary condition, that the homosexual be a male. Beyond that nothing seems to quite nail it down, although as a practical matter, as you point out, there are particular tests for particular cases that work as an approximation.

Why would there be a reason for homosexuality to exist?

Maybe the majority of people are, per Outlander bisexual. That's what Kinsey found, at least if you include every sex act a person performs between 18 and 88. — Bitter Crank

That's sex as behaviour. But I infer that you would agree that behaviour is not an adequate test - And all that I'm on about is the difficulty in defining it, if it is even definable, and it may not be! It may turn out to be a term something like "race," which 50+ years of science has shown to be a meaningless term.

Exactly! The fact that something may be able to be changed does not entail that it should be changed, so it is not a "logical conclusion" at all, but a tendentious conclusion motivated by other, extraneous attitudes or considerations.

Also in answer to the idea that homosexuality would necessarily have some reproductive advantage in order to be selected for, I would say that, in the case of social animals, survival advantage of communities might be a stronger predictor for selection, and communities suffer from overpopulation; which may to some degree be kept in check by the existence of homosexuality within the community.

Or even if there is no advantage tied in with curtailing overpopulation, sexual diversity itself may advantage communities in ways we cannot fathom.

Or again, even if there is no advantage to the community at all, there may be no disadvantage in which case diversity may flourish simply on account of natural variation.

Anyone care to try? should be simple. What, exactly, is (a) homosexual? — tim wood

You seem to be claiming that homosexuality (and by implication heterosexuality) is indefinable. If that were so, then sex (as in male and female) would also be indefinable. Unless you can show that sex in this sense is indefinable, then homosexuality can be defined simply as 'exclusive erotic attraction to members of one's own sex'.

then homosexuality can be defined simply as 'exclusive erotic attraction to members of one's own sex'. — Janus

This actually seems pretty good to me! It takes it out of the behavioral, but it doesn't yet distinguish between nature and nurture.Attraction itself is no easy subject. and when not attracted, what then?

Without a good test, it falls back to what someone says, why and when they say it, and it seems to me it's usually going to matter who's talking.

I think we've gone too far in claiming that there is no such thin as race. That view is reactionary to the idea of race being equivalent to ethnicity.

TW, it seems to me that the definitions of heterosexual and homosexual begin with behavior and desired behavior. I just don't see a problem with defining heterosexuality as the behavior of males and females having sex with each other, as their most common and most preferred behavior. One can be celibate and still be heterosexual, because that is one's preferred behavior, if one wasn't locked up, or something.

What comes after considering behavior and preferred behavior? Not too much. We have straights, gays, bisexuals, and a group of nattering nabobs of nonsense who are very confused about what the hell they are - non-binary gender-fluid inter-sex-fuck up, or something.

Attraction itself is no easy subject. and when not attracted, what then?

Without a good test, it falls back to what someone says, why and when they say it, and it seems to me it's usually going to matter who's talking. — tim wood

Are you suggesting that people sometimes lie, even to themselves, about which sex they are (exclusively or not) attracted to. If so, I'd agree that this probably does happen. But in cases where people are definitely, and exclusively erotically attracted to only one sex, I'd say that sexuality is fairly definable.

It is well known that young adolescents often manifest homosexual behavior. Mutual masturbation, for example, I believe is fairly common among young adolescent or pre-adolescent boys. I experienced this myself, but I can honestly say I had no erotic attraction to boys, no desire to kiss and fondle them and be totally naked with them, as I did with girls.

I think we've gone too far in claiming that there is no such thing as race. — Bitter Crank

Racists, racism, yes. Race, no. Quite a few youtube videos on the topic. And two referenced here on one of the threads, but I cannot quickly find them.

I do not object in any way to informal ways of telling whether some particular thing is or is not something else. But if that's all there is, then there's something wrong with the concept, or the usual understanding of the concept. And it doesn't really matter, does it. Unless you're in a church where homosexuality is considered a sin, or with Isis, when they're throwing people off of roofs. Or in some Arab countries. .

It's to me a question of rigor. Given some integer, there are tests that will tell whether it's odd or even. Given a human being, there are tests that will tell whether it's a he or a she according to the standard in use, genitalia or chromosomes - I am unaware of any confounding of the chromosome test. For sexuality there are a bunch of informal "tests," none conclusive. Yours seems pretty good, so far as it goes. But it's only narrowly comprehensive. What, for example, does it say about a person not in a state of arousal?

My point is that it seems impossible to define sexuality in a way that covers all the bases all the time, and that's imo interesting, not least because a lot of people are quite sure you can - even if they can't.

The fact that something may be able to be changed does not entail that it should be changed — Janus

Precisely. I've always found the "it's not a choice" line of argument in defense of homosexuality to be kind of ceding the more important point to the enemy: "I can't help it" is only relevant to excuse something wrong, and if it's not wrong (which it's not) then there is no "helping it" to be done in the first place, so whether or not anyone can "help it" is irrelevant.

I wrote a short analogous essay on this a long time ago that I'll just reproduce here:

Bleufromagivoria

Gay sex is like blue cheese.

Some people like to have it. Other people, not so much. In fact, other people very much not so much. Most people who aren't into it themselves seem to find it rather disgusting, would never want to have it themselves or even be around other people who are having it, and don't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy it. Nevertheless, some people do enjoy it; and perhaps that is a good question: why?

When it comes to homosexuality, that's a question people ask a lot, and hold very strong opinions on. But I wonder, what if we ask the same question about another behavior people are split over, as illustrated above: bleufromagivoria, or blue cheese eating.

What makes someone like blue cheese? Is it nature or nurture? Are blue cheese lovers — like myself — born with a taste for it, is it in our genes? Or is our taste for it a product of our environment, our upbringing, something about the way our parents raised us, maybe? As a bleufromagivore myself, I honestly don't know. All I know is that I like it, and I have ever since I was first introduced to it.

In fact I remember my first blue cheese vividly. I was at a party and a friend asked me if I would like to try it. I was a little hesitant at first; I had never really thought about the idea before, and it seemed like it might be gross; but I was feeling adventurous that night so I gave it a shot, and to my surprise, I liked it quite a bit! I had a lot of blue cheese that night, as much as was offered to me, and I've had a taste for it ever since. Now I'll rarely pass up an opportunity for blue cheese, any time of day, and will even go out on the town to look for it if I feel a particularly strong craving.

Obviously, that initial exposure had an impact on my behavior; you could say that that friend got me hooked on blue cheese, turned me into a bleufromagivore, and argue that this was nurture and environment shaping my behavior. On the other hand, I was inclined not only to give it a try, but to like it once I had; I'm certain that there are plenty of other people who turn quickly away from any such offer, and more still who might try it but quickly decide that it's not for them and never look back. So perhaps something in my nature was always bleufromagivorous, lying dormant or latent, and that initial exposure simply awakened that tendancy in me. It's a difficult question, certainly not one that I can answer by introspection alone. It would probably take extensive empirical scientific research to give anything close to a conclusive answer to such an elusive topic.

But why does it matter? I mean, sure, it's perhaps an interesting academic question, but then so is the evolutionary origin of ruminate digestion in ungulates, and you don't see people getting politically charged over that. Why not? Because it is morally irrelevant. It is not politically important why ungulates ruminate, because the rumination of ungulates is not something particularly good or bad in any politically relevant sense. It's not a phenomenon anyone has any good reason to want to promote or prohibit. Likewise with eating blue cheese.

And likewise with gay sex. The only politically relevant reason to care about what causes people to like gay sex is if for some reason we wanted to induce or suppress such behavior. And why would we? Does it, or its absence, harm anyone? If so, how? That is where the argument should be with regards to regulation of anything. And if it was determined that there was harm involved, the cause of the harmful behavior would be relevant only in determining the most effective means of suppressing it; it would not be relevant in determining whether or not it should be suppressed to begin with.

We wouldn't let a sociopathic serial killer go free because he was 'just born that way'; nor if he was 'just a product of his environment' for that matter. Murder is wrong and should be prohibited regardless of what makes people inclined to murder; and conversely, nothing is wrong with eating blue cheese, and it should be permitted regardless of why we bleufromagivores are inclined to it.

Likewise, if nothing is wrong with gay sex, then that is the case regardless of what makes people inclined toward it. If someone thinks something is wrong with gay sex, then that is the argument which needs to be had. Unless it can be determined that there is something wrong with it, and that something needs to be done to prevent it, the political division over the cause of it is misplaced and entirely irrelevant; and contrapositively, conceding the political relevance of this causal question is conceding that there is something wrong with it. I'm sure that gay rights supporters don't intend to present an argument of "sure it's wrong, but they can't help it, they were just born that way", but in accepting the political importance of homosexuality being nature, not nurture, they are implicitly presenting such a stance, and would be wise to avoid doing so in the future.

Why do homosexuals exist? The answer is easy.

God created them so He would have a whole section of humanity to hate. Sometimes God must get sick of his own lovey-dovey, all-loving God attitude. Much like you also can't survive on eating candy alone. You need to wash the candy down with some bitters, eh.

Well one would thing that like many a human characteristic sexuality is a spectrum? It’s very likely. But I simply advocated the discussion of one pole of the spectrum there wasn’t any specific agency about it to neglect bisexuality. Furthermore, spectrally assorted traits are still often dictated by a multitude of genes. Height, skin colour etc are governed in such a Complex way like this. I’m open to suggestions for a theory as to why sexuality occurs in the way it does generally or specifically the nature of bisexuality either. All would give equally decent insight into the topic I’m focusing on

i disagree. I don’t believe it’s an unusual question any more than the question “why are there genders?” or “what is sexuality?” In my opinion no question is particularly less worthy of contemplation than another and don’t believe in restricting/confining ourselves to questions which are deemed “not strange” or “strange”. I’m simply curious. Also, nowhere did I suggest abnormality or any information regarding personal opinion or prejudice against homosexuality. I’m simply scientifically/philosophically inquisitive as to the role of various factors in the development of such behaviours. Theories as to what conditions necessitate/ result in the homosexual inclination

if it is even definable, and it may not be! It may turn out to be a term something like "race," which 50+ years of science has shown to be a meaningless term. — tim wood

Interesting remark. Perhaps we have objectified/classified sexual qualities too much just like ethnic ones.

:up:

What, for example, does it say about a person not in a state of arousal? — tim wood

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here, tim. Are you referring to those who are never aroused? If so, I would say they count as asexual. If instead you are referring to the times (probably most of the time) when lovers are not actively aroused, then what about unchanging so-called romantic feelings of love? Isn't it common to feel a (more or less subject to mood and lack of disagreements etc) constant sexual kind of love for your lover without being aroused all the time?