The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Imari]

And you think that no such scene exists anywhere? I think you'd find very few people with that kind of total, I'm saying that the total isn't incredible though.

Read what I said.

20k is technically possible, but bloody hard even for a normal person.

Now read what you said.

I was thinking specifically of gay/bi men in which case no, it really really isn't (difficult).

You're saying that it's not that difficult. I'm saying that even if someone has done it, it was not easy. Doing nothing but travelling from bathhouse to bathhouse and sticking it in everything that wiggles isn't easy. There's only so many bathhouses and only so many gays in a given city.

To get to 20k takes real effort to broaden your field and reasonable physical stamina, even if the actual act of picking up is easy which isn't a given either.

Imagine it this way: You have an inexhaustible source of money, and can pay for as much sex as you want. You've then got a group of people who you can have sex with at will, prostitutes, a location where you can pick up in seconds, brothels, and you can probably sway some more people in clubs and the like. How easy would it be for you to hit 20k? I think you'd have reasonable difficulty simply finding that many people. It could be done, but would require a fair amount of work on your part. You also have to find enough time to travel and do the deed. It's non-trivial.

I think you're contributing to a stereotype when you dismiss how difficult it can be sometimes to find a sexual partner for gays. Nobody gets to 20k without difficulty, even gays. To paint the gay community as this teeming pit of free sex where people have hundreds or thousands of people with comparatively little effort is a complete misrepresentation.

Which is exactly what the original article was trying to achieve, to sully the image of the gay community in the eyes of people for whom sex is a sacred act, and you're contributing.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think you're contributing to a stereotype when you dismiss how difficult it can be sometimes to find a sexual partner for gays.

I wouldn't call it a stereotype by any means, I'm not aware of any reasonable stereotype that accurately covers gay men. EDIT: anybody.

Nobody gets to 20k without difficulty, even gays.

You're right, I'd missed the part of your comment about normality, I was indeed saying that it wouldn't be a common total. If you were minded to though you could do it. I think it would be a horrible life but I have known people that promiscuous. Some of them aren't around any more, sadly.

Which is exactly what the original article was trying to achieve, to sully the image of the gay community in the eyes of people for whom sex is a sacred act, and you're contributing.

I don't support the article by any means but nor am I going to pretend that a reverse stereotype is true either. I'm not sure what "sex as a sacred act" has to do with it though.

 

[Imari]

I'm not sure what "sex as a sacred act" has to do with it though.

Because that is the negativity with which people who are promiscuous are painted.

Generally, sex is taught to be a special thing that you share with those that you love. Some parts of society teach this very strongly, for example churches where sex outside of marriage is sinful. Some parts of society don't really care, like swingers. But that general principal exists in the cultural psyche, which is why the common reaction to someone sleeping with 20k people is something along the lines of "ew, really?"

That's why that article pushes big numbers of partners as a negative. Viewed completely objectively, sleeping with 100 or 1000 or 20,000 partners means nothing. But the article pushes it as a negative, because sex is somehow special, and so for violating that the homos who sleep with so many people are "punished" with diseases. From the article itself, "The wages of promiscuity is deadly disease".

Otherwise, why would someone who slept with 20k people need to be "punished"? They haven't done anything wrong, at least not the last time I looked. Playing tennis with 20k people wouldn't be punishable with syphilis, so why should sex?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because that is the negativity with which people who are promiscuous are painted.

Generally, sex is taught to be a special thing that you share with those that you love. Some parts of society teach this very strongly, for example churches where sex outside of marriage is sinful. Some parts of society don't really care, like swingers. But that general principal exists in the cultural psyche, which is why the common reaction to someone sleeping with 20k people is something along the lines of "ew, really?"

That's why that article pushes big numbers of partners as a negative. Viewed completely objectively, sleeping with 100 or 1000 or 20,000 partners means nothing. But the article pushes it as a negative, because sex is somehow special, and so for violating that the homos who sleep with so many people are "punished" with diseases. From the article itself, "The wages of promiscuity is deadly disease".

Otherwise, why would someone who slept with 20k people need to be "punished"? They haven't done anything wrong, at least not the last time I looked. Playing tennis with 20k people wouldn't be punishable with syphilis, so why should sex?

I take your point on that, I was merely talking about the attainability of the number.

 

[Rich S]

What is this talk of 20,000 sex partners, that would kill you I imagine. Anyways I think you can be forcibly stopped from having sex once you get HIV+ am I incorrect? I know people get sued for giving others infections. I think it falls along the lines of intentional bodily harm but that doesn't really seem quite just when someone is in a sexual frenzy. Maybe similar to running over a pedestrian with your car accidentally, something along those lines.

 

[Aki Ko]

What is this talk of 20,000 sex partners, that would kill you I imagine. Anyways I think you can be forcibly stopped from having sex once you get HIV+ am I incorrect? I know people get sued for giving others infections. I think it falls along the lines of intentional bodily harm but that doesn't really seem quite just when someone is in a sexual frenzy. Maybe similar to running over a pedestrian with your car accidentally, something along those lines.

If you don't let your spouse know that you have an infection such as HIV or AIDS before sexual intercourse, that's when you get in deep trouble.

 

[Odnomre]

20.000? I should get to work then, my counter for gay sex is at 0 right now

I'd say knowingly infecting someone with HIV should be punishable. It's your responsibility to wrap it up and keep it from spreading (That's what they taught in school about how the disease can spread after you have it), so if you neglect that... Then it's your fault. Treat someone like a sex offender after they do such a thing, at the same level of rape. Maybe even give them a worse treatment.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd say knowingly infecting someone with HIV should be punishable.

It is. National AIDS Trust (PDF), Crown Prosecution Service.

 

[Odnomre]

It is. National AIDS Trust (PDF), Crown Prosecution Service.

I didn't know that, thanks Googled a little bit and found out that it's an offense here in Holland too, under the label of grievous bodily harm.

 

[Dennisch]

I didn't know that, thanks Googled a little bit and found out that it's an offense here in Holland too, under the label of grievous bodily harm.

This was quite a big case not so long ago.

 

[Odnomre]

This was quite a big case not so long ago.

Yeah, it was named as an example case. To be honest, I drowned that event out pretty quickly because I was still in my "HAH! Gaaaaay!" phase back then.

 

[Dennisch]

"HAH! Gaaaaay"

Please elaborate. For I do not know that phase.

 

[Odnomre]

Please elaborate. For I do not know that phase.

When you're a 12 year old boy and you're trying to prove people what a man you are, you laugh at stuff like that. And now i'm here on a public forum with a pink furry Bobcat as my avatar

 

[Daniel]

Please elaborate. For I do not know that phase.

Denial.

Followed by anger, bargaining, depression and then acceptance.

 

[Scaff]

My favorite group of loons have weighed in on the topic.

Vaccines may cause homosexuality......

http://thespudd.com/vaccines-may-cause-homosexuality-according-to-vactruth-at-least/

... a new level of nuttery from the Anti-vax brigade (follow the link to the facebook page if you want a good insight into the seriously deranged)..

 

[Liquid]

@Scaff Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Homosexuality is found in nature in other species and has occurred in populations long before the advent of vaccines.

/end of debate

 

[Carbonox]

NOT. THE. ANTI. VACCINATION. NUTS. AGAIN.

...sorry, had to get something off my chest for a change.

 

[Scaff]

The Anti-vax bragade are easily my favorite form of conspiracy nut, but this does seem to be mad even for them.

 

[DK]

I think I remember some sort of campaigner associated with the anti-fluoride movement here in Ireland claiming a link between homosexuality and vaccines - well, it was either vaccines or fluoride.

 

[Joel]

Anti-vaxxers are probably the most dangerous conspiracy nuts there are these days. It's terrifying how reckless that behaviour is, the utter selfishness is unbelievable. They can feel safe not vaccinating their kids because of vaccines and the herd immunity they provide while making it worse for everyone else.

It's just scary. Viruses like measles thought to be eradicated are coming back to North America because of these utterly selfish morons. Conservatives aren't the only ones that are anti science.

 

[Liquid]

It's also rather morbid that, assuming their logic is factually accurate, they'd sooner risk their child die of measles than raise them autistic.

And I seriously cannot comprehend how there is a link between vaccination and homosexuality, given how long it has been extant in nature, documented by ourselves as a phenomenon and documented in other species that have never had vaccinations affect any part of their gene pools.

 

[huskeR32]

Conservatives aren't the only ones that are anti science.

Not that it's terribly OT to respond to this, but...

I've found anti-vaxxers to be just as likely to be conservative as liberal. They're their own special non-partisan brand of loony.

 

[Carbonox]

Creepy part is, I'm vaxxed and have Asperger's.

No time for scientific methods! Vaccines seriously hurt children's development! They must be banned! And the government has obviously put some dangerous viruses into them so that they can reduce our population! This is some serious Illuminati 🤬! And don't forget the chemtrails!

 

[Odnomre]

Creepy part is, I'm vaxxed and have Asperger's.

No time for scientific methods! Vaxxes seriously hurt children's development! They must be banned!

Vaccinated and Autism here as well. And I guess you can add the homosexuality. But I think Autism is preferable to the measles and other 3rd world country diseases

 

[PeterJB]

Also vaxxed and AS, and some appreciation for this:

I could be their poster boy...

 

[Team THRT Drift]

No no no no no no no no no no no no no!

I distinctly remember voting for "nobody's business"!

What is this homophobic bull:censored:!?

 

[DK]

Creepy part is, I'm vaxxed and have Asperger's.

No time for scientific methods! Vaccines seriously hurt children's development! They must be banned! And the government has obviously put some dangerous viruses into them so that they can reduce our population! This is some serious Illuminati 🤬! And don't forget the chemtrails!

Given what @Liquid said, I honestly want to slap anti-vaxxers in the face if they bring up that "vaccines cause autism" bollocks.

 

[Carbonox]

Given what @Liquid said, I honestly want to slap anti-vaxxers in the face if they bring up that "vaccines cause autism" bollocks.

Hit 'em hard. And then vaccinate them when they're unconscious.

 

[Dan]

I hate getting vaccines, but if it's for necessary reasons (like preventing serious disease), sure. I'll take it.

EDIT: I'm bisexual and have Asperger's Syndrome. THE ANTI-VAXXERS WERE RIGHT!

 

[Joel]

Not that it's terribly OT to respond to this, but...

I've found anti-vaxxers to be just as likely to be conservative as liberal. They're their own special non-partisan brand of loony.

I've just always found a lot of the anti vaccine crowd are part of the all organic, all natural, no GMO, Monsanto is Hitler group too. But you're right, that kind of stuff wraps around to the fluoride in the water conspiracies and Obama FEMA death camps on the other side of the coin.