Sigh. So much ignorance, so little time. Anyone have a link to ATGG handy?
I’m still waiting on an explanation for your random “cite?” interjection, LadySybil…care to let us all know what you meant?
And what the heck is ATGG?
ATGG=Ask The Gay Guy
Oookay. Well, that settles it. I’m officially confuzzled.
sigh
Anal sex is not brutal.
It is not dominination.
It is not hard wired.
You are simply uneducated and using fear as a defense mechanism against learning.
So, the blind attempting to lead the blind is your mode now?
LadySybil, how about you cut out the cryptic shit and let us know what the fuck you’re talking about, hmm?
And BeatenMan…sigh Glutton for punishment, aren’t you? Well, I’ll leave the inevitable further beating to others.
This is an interesting view of being on the receiving end of penetrative sex. I wonder, how do you think women lie there and take it if we don’t have to? Or do you see it as being proper when women are being dominated in this fashion, and “brutal” when it’s men, who ought to be the dominators?
(It does tend to back up your OP theory, Ferrous.)
BeatenMan, have you seen anal sex other than portrayed in American media? It doesn’t all go hard and fast and reckless[sub]though I wouldn’t know:([/sub]
Bravo, Bren_Cameron! You said it before I could, and more concisely. For a long time I’ve considered this attitude towards penetration as a likely suspect in male homophobia.
Which is why homosexuality probably isn’t genetic or hereditary.
As for the “homophobes are repressed gays” cites, the plethysmograph isn’t exactly the pinnacle of science.
Well, if one is going on the model put forth by Catherine McKinnon, all penetration is rape.
From my field work among the domsticated homosexual, I’ve found that anal sex is very, very nice.
I think that once I get my McArthur Genius Grant, I will be able to spend all my time doing field work.
To dream, the impossible dream.
So, in essence, it’s your problem, and you project it onto the people around you.
I’m underwhelmed.
And I’ll include my sig line so folks can read the ATGG threads if they’re so inclined. (I hope CuriousCanuck doesn’t mind, as it’s entirely appropriate in this case.)
Esprix
So… as long as you have no idea that they’re gay or if they act butch enough to pass your muster they’re fine?
People like you tempt me to shave off my beard, wear makeup, and run around in evening gowns.
So many gender issues, so much denial, so little desire to learn.
This doesn’t follow. Natural selection might prefer guys who are attracted to women, but it doesn’t select against guys who aren’t exclusively attracted to women, just so long as they reproduce. Which means that if there are genetic components for “being attracted to your own gender” they could still have been passed along.
The assumption that anything nature selects against will inevitably be wiped out just doesn’t always hold true. You’d think nature would select against people with bad eyesight, or really stupid people, both of whom would have been sabre tooth tiger snacks fairly quickly, and yet look around you.
And since I agree with Ferrous’ theory–came to it myself a number of years ago–I find Catherine McKinnon’s model bizzarely misogynistic. I’m not saying that every woman has to enjoy penetrative sex, just that equating it with rape, domination, and humiliation is a particularly misogynistic view, from what I can see. It isn’t so much a departure from male-dominated misogynistic views about sex as it is the logical, extreme conclusion of them.
**
I’ve met many who agree with you. I myself can take it or leave it. I wish you luck with your ambition! Remember, the larger the sample size, the more accurate the resulting statistics.
**
[/QUOTE]
I’ll concede that it is possible.
Some think bad eyesight in youths (bad eyesight in older people doesn’t affect natural selection, since they’d die after reproducing) can be caused by modern society in some way. Cecil has written on the subject. As for stupidity, I’m inclined to think modern society has a hand in it as well.
But let’s skip the details. You’re right in that every undesirable trait (from the viewpoint of natural selection) isn’t wiped out. Therefore it is possible that a “gay gene” exists.
Are you sure this is Catharine MacKinnon’s view? I don’t think much of MacKinnon, but to her credit I don’t believe she’s ever actually claimed any such thing. If you have a good cite I’ll take that back, of course.
MacKinnon’s buddy Andrea Dworkin has said that all penetration is inherently violent, but even she doesn’t claim that it’s all rape.
**
Well, in fairness, it’s not really my theory. Just something I saw on TV and found intriguing. I do think there’s something to it though.
As for the “all penetration is rape” theory, I’m pretty sure Mockingbird doesn’t agree with it either. I just took it as a humorous observation. Correct me if I’m wrong, Mockingbird.
Now, as to the survival of bad eyesight and so on, I don’t recall where I heard this, but consider: Perhaps primitive human males with bad eyesight, or similar defects that made them poor hunters, didn’t go out hunting with the rest of the men. They stayed back in the cave (or whatever) with the women. Thus they had plenty of opportunity to get a little surreptitious nookie* with the mates of the big boys. 
That doesn’t speak to the “gay gene” possibility, of course.
[sub]*Band name![/sub]