Hmm.
Your first sentence sounds sarcastic, but that doesn’t fit with the rest of your post. Am I being whooshed?
Nope, can’t parse it.
lissener,
FWIW, I didn’t read sarcasm, just a thoughtful expression of gratitude.
To answer your question, the SDMB didn’t change my views on homosexuality (or any of the other amazing varieties of love that exist), but it did get me to stop using the word “cocksucker.”
I thank all of the posters out there who took the time to explain why a word I once thought harmless could, in fact, hurt others.
It hasnt cause me to change my position on big issues, but it did change my former classification of prisoners who avail/force themselves of other inmates. While I still don’t believe they are a 0 on the Scale (or is it 6?), I don’t think they are as far down the scale as I once did.
This in large part came because of my arguments about the classification of pedophilia as an orientation rather than a lifestyle. After all, if it is possible to prey on children without an orientation towards them, making the “lifestyle” and orientation separate, then it is also possible to prey on your own grown-up, gender without being a homosexual. Of course, some people will have a problem with my second paragraph but not the first. Go figure.
Definitely **not **sarcasm; sorry if it sounded that way.
I just don’t see the connection. You say that the reason you changed your perception of the sexual orientation of inmates who commit prison rape is that you discovered that pedophilia is “an orientation rather than a lifestyle.” How does one lead to the other? (i.e., how does the designation of pedophiles impact the designation of prison rapists?)
sleeping: consistency. Behavior does not necessarily indicate orientation.
Lissener:
I’m sorry, but you miss the point entirely. My sexuality is inseparable from my self, but it’s still only incidental to who I am.
Lissener I’ve always subscribed to this belief… that one’s sexuality is just one of many (important) things that defines a person. Hence I’ve always wondered why its a big issue for so many people in this “enlightened” age.
Of course I’d negleted to notice that sadly much of the world isn’t as enlightened as me. 
I’ve recently had a friend come out, and my first thought was “Why didn’t you tell us earlier? We are your friends…”
But what I’d never stopped to consider is how obsessed people can be about others sexuality, and how this can get in the way of getting to know someone as a complete person. My friend is very comfortable with his sexuality (his mother isn’t but that’s another story) but he didn’t want it to be the overwhelming thing that defined him.
So even enlightened old me (:D) has developed a new appreciation (thanks to my friend) of what life can be like when you have to deal with society’s day-to-day assumptions and judgements. Like how “actually, I’m gay” is a far bigger deal than “actually, I’m left handed”, and how tiring this can be for him.
Yes, that’s what I was looking for.
I agree that behavior does not necessarily indicate the overall orientation (that is, labelling a person as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual). However, it does indicate that that person has some desire for a member of that gender. For example, a man who lead a completely heterosexual lifestyle while he was free, and engages in homosexual sex while in prison, can be considered straight, but on the Kinsey scale he would not be a zero (he is more straight than gay, but he could not be totally straight). The rationale for this is that he had to have some pre-existing desire for men, but it was trumped by his desire for women. With no women around, he went to his second choice. (This can also be seen as the desire for sex overcoming a person’s focus on a particular lifestyle.)
On to your second point: pedophilia does not have to be an orientation; it can be a lifestyle. That’s sort of true, but I’m not sure the examples are comparable. When the man is in prison, he wants to have, there are no women around, so he goes to his secondary orientation (if you can call it that). With the pedophile, he is free to do whatever he pleases (I’m assuming he is not in prison) and he has a desire to have sex with children. [Pedophilia is a sexual attraction toward prepubescent children.] This is clearly indicative of a disorder; it is not recognized as normal. Whether or not he acts on his desire determines his lifestyle. Is this what you meant?
I would also like to point out that scientific research into whether homosexuality is hereditary is not conclusive. Personally, I think it’s both the genetic disposition and the environment in which a person is raised. As for pedophilia, I think it’s just a person’s childhood experiences.
Even if homosexuality was a choice, I see no reason to discriminate against gays and do not understand why people think that it has to be proven to be an involuntary condition in order to be legal. It’s really quite simple: a person is free to do as he likes, as long as he isn’t hurting anyone. Consensual sex, regardless of its nature, is not detrimental to anyone.
[
It should also be noted that prison sex is not so much engaged in to slake sexual desire as to assert dominance. Prison sex is, in an overwhelming number of cases, not consensual. It’s rape. And it’s “I’m the man, you’re my bitch” rape.
This has nothing to do with homosexuality. It has everything to do with dominance and fear.
sleeping wrote:
Yeah, that’s what I was trying to say. But I previously thought they were pretty much bi (notwithstanding their own objections and the fact that the other partner is unwilling.)
And yet homosexuality has always been accepted as normal.
Inasmuch as homosexual sex is also a lifestyle (i.e. not much), yes.
So . . . if a straight man in prison is raped, that MAKES him bi?
Thanks, panache.
Yes, that’s exactly what I said.:dubious:
No, but it does mean the rapist is not completely straight.
That doesn’t necessarily follow. Do you understand what rape is? Rape has very, very little to do with sexual desire, and very, very much to do with establishing dominance and striking the victim with terror and shame. Just because a sexual vehicle is used to make this happen doesn’t mean the rapist is doing it primarily to satisfy his own sexual desire.
Which means the rapist doesn’t have to have an iota of bisexuality about him. It’s not about sex 90%+ of the time. It’s not about how pretty the victim is or how hot his ass is. It’s about making the victim aware of just how low he really is on the totem pole, and how painful it can be to go against the rapist.
jayjay: if you say it enough, will it become true?
You know, some of my favorite people are cocksuckers. In fact, I think the problem with the world is that there aren’t nearly enough of them. 
Not strictly historically correct. In the U.S., it was regarded as a mental illness up until the early 1970s.
It so happens it is mostly true.
Hell, it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that gay men have raped women. It’s not about sex.
Rape is about humiliating someone, degrading them and turning sex into a weapon.