The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[DK]

He's only a district judge, and I expect this sort of piece from the Daily Mail.

Yes, abortion could sort out the potential birth defects that arise due to incest. But incest carries the connotation of manipulation of one sibling by the other. As for paedophilia - no, I cannot ever see that becoming less taboo. Paedophilia is the attraction to children, incapable of informed consent to sexual acts.

 

[BobK]

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private, who places which appendage into what orifice, is nobody's business but the people involved. This is not affected by gender, race, consanguinity, nationality, political affiliation (if any), or anything else.

 

[Famine]

Speaking as a person born in the first half of the 20th century, I find it amazing how much liberalization has taken place in the realm of Western sexuality. First came the waves of feminine lib, BDSM, then gay and lesbian movements, open pornography, bisexual and transgender movements, now incest and pedo.

At the very least, the last one is a bucking of the trend. The very reason for the existence of Operation Yew Tree is because paedophilia was reasonably open and accepted in the 60s without be de facto legal - so many 60s/70s music industry-connected entertainers are being had over a barrel now for enjoying the attentions of pubescent groupies because it was the culture of the time, though Savile's apparent taste for even younger fare and not necessarily alive ones stands him out alone even in that crowd.

It took until the middle of the 70s for the UK to ban paedophilic magazines - prior to that, "child love" concerns in mainland Europe (particularly Denmark) printed magazines specifically for distribution in the UK. Even Japan banned it recently...

Thankfully as we're getting more towards the liberalisation of adult sexuality, we're getting further away from liberalised non-adult sexuality - and it doesn't really have a place in the discussion of freedom of consenting adults to do with each other whatever they wish.

 

[Dotini]

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private, who places which appendage into what orifice, is nobody's business but the people involved. This is not affected by gender, race, consanguinity, nationality, political affiliation (if any), or anything else.

Anything else? What if they're doing it in public? Or on Twitter, classroom videos, theater and TV screens going around the world to places that are less liberal than we??

 

[Joel]

Anything else? What if they're doing it in public? Or on Twitter, classroom videos, theater and TV screens going around the world to places that are less liberal than we??

Well I guess that's up to the lawmakers of the places less liberal than we. Should women not take pictures of themselves and post them on the internet with their faces showing where someone from Saudi Arabia might see them?

 

[Exorcet]

Anything else? What if they're doing it in public? Or on Twitter, classroom videos, theater and TV screens going around the world to places that are less liberal than we??

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private...

Why should we care if what they do goes someplace else?

But incest carries the connotation of manipulation of one sibling by the other.

All the more reason to allow it then. After all homosexuality was connected with AIDS, mental illness, and divine wrath. It's harder for people to grab on to that when there are endless examples out in the open proving them wrong.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why should we care if what they do goes someplace else?

Based on the bit about placing appendages in places I am 99.99999% sure he is talking about sex.

I know it is more fun to quote out-of-context and make it seem like he is being close-minded, but I doubt you would like to be associated with using the same tactics as the news media. I think most of us would agree that sexual activity of any form should not be a public activity.

 

[Exorcet]

I think I did a poor job organizing that post. I quoted BobK only because he had already mentioned "in private" in his post, so I don't know why Dotini brought it up in response to him. The part about not caring where what (and I was being more general than BobK) goes was a reply to Dotini because it's not our job to enforce some other place's dark age rules.

 

[FoolKiller]

@Exorcet

I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

 

[Denur]

I think most of us would agree that sexual activity of any form should not be a public activity.

Why? What happend to us humans that sex has become such a taboo?

 

[Dotini]

John Kerry has stated it's one of his highest priorities to confirm a transgendered person as an ambassador of the United States to another country. I suppose this would be a great treat and compliment for the UK. But we are in competition for the affections and cooperation of such as Brazil, India, Indonesia, Russia and China, and I would think it prudent to consider what effect openly LGBT ambassadors might have on cultural and diplomatic relations.

We have to face the fact that we are an highly advanced culture - far in advance of the great bulk of the world - and they may not be quite ready for our ideas of openly prurient and deviant behavior.

We have an unfortunate tendency to enforce our sudden epiphanies, revelations and moral insights onto the rest of the world - too often at the point of a gun or the threat of sanctions.

 

[Omnis]

Why? What happend to us humans that sex has become such a taboo?

Civilization happened. Nobody wants to see you make a mockery of sexual intercourse in public.

 

[FoolKiller]

Why? What happend to us humans that sex has become such a taboo?

We had kids. Early sexual exposure to a young child has the potential to be damaging. The more we begin to understand about developmental psychology the more we are seeing that earlier exposure to sexual images can affect them later in life.

In some cases negative effects of exposure are not just limited to children.

On top of that, we exist in a world now where its hard to get people to wipe down gym equipment when they get finished. If people can have sex in public I will never sit on a bench again.

This isn't a taboo thing for me. It is about how we are seeing cases of children affected by viewing pornography. I can't imagine what would happen if they saw it in person. And then there is just the ick factor. Urine is sterile. Sexual fluids are not. Should I be allowed to just pee in public? If someone tried to legalize public sex I would start PAWS: People Against Wet Spots

 

[Denur]

Early sexual exposure to a young child has the potential to be damaging. The more we begin to understand about developmental psychology the more we are seeing that earlier exposure to sexual images can affect them later in life.

Are we talking about extreme forms of sex here, or also 'normal' intercourse? What kind of damage? Do you happen to have links to scientific research on this matter?

On top of that, we exist in a world now where its hard to get people to wipe down gym equipment when they get finished. If people can have sex in public I will never sit on a bench again.

Bit of a slippery slope argument (pun intended).

And then there is just the ick factor. Urine is sterile. Sexual fluids are not. Should I be allowed to just pee in public? If someone tried to legalize public sex I would start PAWS: People Against Wet Spots

This too. Public sex (live or e.g. on TV) does not mean leaving bodily fluids all over the place.

 

[FoolKiller]

Are we talking about extreme forms of sex here, or also 'normal' intercourse? What kind of damage? Do you happen to have links to scientific research on this matter?

Will an article from Psychology Today work?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...red-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content

We are in a unique time. We are beginning to understand developmental psychology and sexual content is available practically everywhere.

But I hope you aren't suggesting that you don't see an issue with a very young child being exposed to sex live and in person.

Bit of a slippery slope argument (pun intended).

This too. Public sex (live or e.g. on TV) does not mean leaving bodily fluids all over the place.

Are you claiming that all bodily fluids can be controlled during sexual activity? My experience says otherwise. There's even a joke about who has to sleep in the wet spot.

But if nothing else, I don't want bare anuses and sexual organs touching things I might put my hand on.

As a parent I do not wish to have my daughter learn about sex by an amorous couple. She's only four. It isn't an image on TV, where I can change the channel. If I saw it I would treat it the same as I would someone using bad language or smoking near her. They would get an earful.

 

[Denur]

I don't have children and haven't given the issue much thought, so please forgive my ignorance on the matter.

Will an article from Psychology Today work?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...red-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content

Yes, that is a good start. I agree with large parts of that article, but don't see the problem of children having sex at a young age (I started at 9, so I have some hands-on experience. At 46y/o I still have to rape my first victim...). To me, the most important part of that article is:

The goal isn’t to avoid the issue, but to approach it head-on so that your children learn about sex and relationships from their most trusted source: you

But I would add (pre-)school as a source.

But I hope you aren't suggesting that you don't see an issue with a very young child being exposed to sex live and in person.

yes, I do see an issue where it concerns hard porn and violence. Not when the child is exposed to e.g. its parents having reproductive sex, because they happen to live in a one-room house (still plenty of those around in the world).

Are you claiming that all bodily fluids can be controlled during sexual activity?

No, but that is not my point. I still expect people to live up to our society's standard of hygiene and not to have sex in places shared with others. Unless it is a brothel or sex-club with hygienic means available. But sex in e.g. forest? Fine by me.

 

[zzz_pt]

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private, who places which appendage into what orifice, is nobody's business but the people involved. This is not affected by gender, race, consanguinity, nationality, political affiliation (if any), or anything else.

Religion is probably the major problem. I just had to add this to your perfect post.

 

[Dotini]

Religion is probably the major problem. I just had to add this to your perfect post.

The post is imperfect, because it fails to address "open" or "outed" beliefs, practices, behaviors, norms and standards ultimately reflected in widespread customs, education, policy, law, publications, broadcast media, etc. in the originating culture and cultures beyond.

 

[Famine]

The post is imperfect, because it fails to address "open" or "outed" beliefs, practices, behaviors, norms and standards ultimately reflected in widespread customs, education, policy, law, publications, broadcast media, etc. in the originating culture and cultures beyond.

I've added a helpful highlight for you to show that it does:

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private, who places which appendage into what orifice, is nobody's business but the people involved. This is not affected by gender, race, consanguinity, nationality, political affiliation (if any), or anything else.

What two (or more) consenting adults get up to in private is nothing to do with anyone else, regardless of any other factors.

 

[Dotini]

The post is timid, puny, tiny in its scope. It says NOTHING that anyone around here or most of Western world can disagree with.

To be interesting, relevant or meaningful, any post in this thread must take the bold and brave step of addressing open or outed sexuality.

What's private is, by definition private. Secret. Unknowable. Irrelevant and meaningless to society at large.

Step up to the plate and address the issues of open, notorious or outed sexuality, if it would please you.

 

[Famine]

The post is timid, puny, tiny in its scope. It says NOTHING that anyone around here or most of Western world can disagree with.

Odd that there's still many outlawed sexual practices that occur between two adults in private then.

To be interesting, relevant or meaningful, any post in this thread must take the bold and brave step of addressing open or outed sexuality.

What's private is, by definition private. Secret. Unknowable. Irrelevant and meaningless to society at large.

Step up to the plate and address the issues of open, notorious or outed sexuality, if it would please you.

Why? It's not relevant.

My sexuality is probably known - I'm married and I have children. How I express my sexuality with the partner(s) of my choice in private is none of anyone's business but myself and the partner(s) involved, regardless of any other factors.

Being openly gay, straight or bisexual and actually having sex are two different things. That I am straight does not imply my preferred position.

 

[BobK]

The post is timid, puny, tiny in its scope. It says NOTHING that anyone around here or most of Western world can disagree with.

Forgive me, then. Would it have been better if I'd included sex with aliens?

 

[Dotini]

Formula One chief Max Moseley brought low by his Nazi sex-slave torture prison.

Silvio Berlusconi, one of the most powerfully ensconced men in the Western world, brought down by a voluptuous but slightly underage girl.

These are topical examples where questionable sexual behavior cost serious people a serious problem.

 

[TenEightyOne]

We had kids. Early sexual exposure to a young child has the potential to be damaging. The more we begin to understand about developmental psychology the more we are seeing that earlier exposure to sexual images can affect them later in life.

In some cases negative effects of exposure are not just limited to children.

Got some citations? My own experience and instinct suggests the opposite; children that don't have gender, sexuality and sexual health explained as naturally as dental or dermal health are can seem to be the least equipped to deal with their sexuality when it hits them like a train.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, that is a good start. I agree with large parts of that article, but don't see the problem of children having sex at a young age (I started at 9, so I have some hands-on experience. At 46y/o I still have to rape my first victim...).

Being unexpectedly exposed to it out-of-context and experiencing it with someone age-appropriate are two very different things. That said, if I find out my daughter is having sex at 9 (were you even in puberty -and please tell me the other was similarly aged) she will be locked in her room until she is 18. Just because you turned out "normal" doesn't mean every can or will. We are talking increased probabilities, not definites. If we are going to fight secondhand smoke exposure and drunk driving due to increased probabilities then this is no different. There is a probability of creating issues.

To me, the most important part of that article is: But I would add (pre-)school as a source.

Preschool? As in they teach it in preschool? No. I'm the parent. That is my responsibility. If you want to explain the physiology as part of biology, fine. But sex and intimacy as a whole are far more than that. That needs to come from a source that they have a bond of their own form with.

Maybe I'm wrong, but trust and intimacy are important to a relationship. You can't teach that in a scholarly setting. My wife and I don't hide all physical intimacy from my daughter. We cuddle on the sofa, kiss, and do flirty things, but there is no direct sexual activities being performed, including heavy petting. She knows where babies come from, but has never seen a sexual act. Those are two very different things.

yes, I do see an issue where it concerns hard porn and violence. Not when the child is exposed to e.g. its parents having reproductive sex, because they happen to live in a one-room house (still plenty of those around in the world).

There is a far different context from that and finding a couple leaving butt prints in the sandbox at the playground.

No, but that is not my point. I still expect people to live up to our society's standard of hygiene and not to have sex in places shared with others. Unless it is a brothel or sex-club with hygienic means available. But sex in e.g. forest? Fine by me.

This sounds as if we agree. I've experienced the forest thing...and a locked bathroom...and other situations that I won't go into detail on. If we are talking about people being allowed to have outdoor sex in a remote or solitary environment (who doesn't love skinny dipping?) where people happening upon is not a high likelihood, then I'm on board. But just throwing open the floodgates to anywhere in public, no. Even if it were legal, I believe society itself would condemn it, much like hate speech in the US. You are legally allowed to do it, but you might have your life destroyed for it.


And to be honest, nothing ruins my mood more than someone walking in or even knocking on the door or calling.

Got some citations? My own experience and instinct suggests the opposite; children that don't have gender, sexuality and sexual health explained as naturally as dental or dermal health are can seem to be the least equipped to deal with their sexuality when it hits them like a train.

I feel like you ignored that Denur and I have been discussing this. How is being unexpectedly exposed to strangers doing it in an openly public place remotely close to what you are discussing?

 

[Denur]

@FoolKiller: No, puberty was still a year or two away and yes they were always of about the same age. For the rest, your conservative attitude on sexuality is so alien to me, that further discussion is useless.

 

[FoolKiller]

@FoolKiller: No, puberty was still a year or two away

I have no idea how that works. I was worried about Transformers and Hot Wheels. Even though I knew what sex was and had the full reproductivity biology lesson in school at age 10 sex was not close to my mind until I discovered that looking at certain girls made things happen to my body.

For the rest, your conservative attitude on sexuality is so alien to me, that further discussion is useless.

My attitude would offend most people I know, so I have no clue which parts are just completely alien to you or if all of it is.

 

[Famine]

Formula One chief Max Moseley brought low by his Nazi sex-slave torture prison.

Silvio Berlusconi, one of the most powerfully ensconced men in the Western world, brought down by a voluptuous but slightly underage girl.

These are topical examples where questionable sexual behavior cost serious people a serious problem.

Even better, the second is paedophilia (technically ephebephilia) and the first is an example of exactly what you say doesn't happen in this enlightened Western world - people thinking that what goes on between consenting adults is any of their business.

 

[Dotini]

Well then, finally we can say that with respect to the question ("Is unusual sexuality a serious problem or an alternative lifestyle?"), it can be both.

Even in the ultra-liberalized West, you can get into real trouble by acting outside conventional bounds. Especially if you are in a position of power, trust or authority.

 

[Famine]

Which takes us back to the wholly accurate statement:

Again, what two or more consenting adults do in private, who places which appendage into what orifice, is nobody's business but the people involved. This is not affected by gender, race, consanguinity, nationality, political affiliation (if any), or anything else.

We just need to get the tabloids and enraged middle Englanders on message and we're gravy.

I don't really care who my MP is screwing - so long as I can screw the same person if we both wanted to and the person being screwed isn't me.