Let's get real about homosexuality

Great Debates
1

Many people claim to be repulsed by homosexuality. I think they are in a quite small minority, smaller than they might think.

Consider pornography. It is a huge industry. I think it is fair to say that the number of men who indulge in pornography dwarfs the number of men who specifically avoid it.

Most pornography includes at least one scene or set of images involving lesbians.

Now, these depictions by and large tend not to reflect authentic lesbian sexuality (whatever that may be–surely a subject for a thread of its own), but these are nevertheless by definition homosexual images. So we may deduce from this that the concept of homosexuality itself is not nearly as offensive an issue as is commonly advertised.

The issue seems to be more specifically with male homosexuality, particularly anal sex.

First, I would point out that a substantial minority of hetero couples enjoy this.

Next, I would point to Masters and Johnson (could they have more appropriate names?) in defining erogenous zones as having over a certain amount of nerve endings, thus including nipples, earlobes, fingertips, etc. The anus certainly qualifies under these specifications.

"But sht comes out of the anus," the opposed will say. Very true, but pss comes out of the penis, and menstrual waste comes out of the vagina. How disgusting is that? (irony)

“But if we accept this, pederasty and bestiality are not far behind,” they may say.
Sex with underage people of whatever sex is covered under statutory rape laws. Sex with animals is covered under cruelty to animals laws. These are not likely to be overturned no matter how liberal the justices in question may be.

I’m a a straight guy, but come on. Let’s be real about homosexuality.

2

I think you’re probably right; the ‘ick’ factor, even if not consciously percieved, is a strong influence in the whole issue; for some people, it might not even be the ‘ick’ of any physical act, but just the alienness of the idea of sex with the same gender as yourself - but lets face it, for a heterosexual person, that’s a completely natural and understandable reaction.

The problem comes when we try to export that reaction as if it were an objective statement about the real world; it isn’t - and other people’s mileage certainly differs, but some people treat ‘I don’t like it’ and ‘it’s disgusting’ as if they were the same thing.

3

You should try and get hold of a copy of Ricky Gervais’s stand-up routine entitled ‘Animals’. One section is devoted to a critique of a book called Biological Exuberance : Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (from the slightly infelicitously named publishers Stonewall Inn - not so many nerve endings there) by someone who rejoices in the name Bruce Bagemihl.

Bruce uses pencil drawings as “evidence” that animals have homosexual sex. As amateur naturalist Gervais points out (and he knows a thing or two about natural selection, as is shown by his withering assessment of the respective merits of sharks and Nazis (“Sharks - brilliant; Nazis - rubbish…a shark would have found Anne Frank in a second”), using drawings to support your argument in the photographic age is a bit disappointing.

Despite this empirical drawback, the illustrations don’t fall into the trap of trying to gloss over or bowdlerise the full range of homoerotic lovemaking activities and emotions - from the functional and repetitive (a couple of furry lesbians whose relationship appears to be lacking its original spark, who Gervais reckons could spruce things up a bit with the aid of a strap-on dildo) through a pair of very much in-love gay dolphins (pink dolphins, one would assume), who are practising blowhole sex (or, as Gervais, lapsing uncharacteristically into vulgarity, puts it, “fucking in the head”) to the inevitable pair of hedgehogs, shown in two apparently characteristic poses - one the anal glide (I’m not sure I’ve got the terminology right with this one), the other cunnilingus. So, they must be lesbians as well, come to think of it.

Anyway, a picture paints (or in this case draws) a thousand words. Get the disc.

4

Sex with animals is not covered under cruelty to animals. Sex with animals is quite legal in much of Europe as long as the animal isn’t harmed. Quite reasonable too. A woman having a go with her German shepherd isn’t harming the dog any. And anyway, it’s hard to imagine what cruelty could be done to animals that aren’t already been done ten folds in the daily routines of the meat industry. Bestiality laws are based on the ick factor.

And you present no arguments. Why are bestiality and paedophilia laws not likely to be overturned?

5

Um, WTF?

I’m looking at my copy of that very book right now. The evidence Bagemihl uses includes, guess what? Photographs- roughly equal in number to the drawings. And 100 pages of notes and bibliography, including studies from as far back as the 1890s

Oh, and it’s published by Profile Books in the UK, St. Martin’s press in the US.

But hey, don’t let the facts get in your way.

6

Actually, the thing that baffles me about male distaste for homosexuality and the “ick” factor is as follows:

Why is it that even exceptionally homophobic men have no problem doing something they’d sooner kill themselves than allow to be done to them? I’ve found precious few straight men who object to having anal sex with a WOMAN, but who have minor conniption fits at the very notion of doing so with a man. Why? Wouldn’t the ick factor be identical?

Alternatively, but in a related vein, why is it okay for a woman to perform oral sex on her partner but the notion of a man doing the same exact thing to the same exact person is a fate worse than death? Boy cooties?

It always makes me narrow my eyes in annoyance at men who profess that the thought of men performing oral sex on men is the height of depravity, but if their girlfriend won’t then she’s frigid and a worthless lover. I’ve met a number of these folks. They make my bitchslap hand itch.

I would think either a behavior is depraved or it isn’t personally.

7

Well, there is the matter of consent. As we define things now, children and non-human animals are not capable of granting consent to sexual acts. I don’t see how any consensual sexual behavior among adults is going to change that.

8

I believe the “ick factor” is perfectly normal and understandable, but people have to know that it works both ways. As a gay man, there are experience that I love sharing with my partner, that I would NEVER, EVER want to experience with a woman. And there’s one particular activity that most straight guys apparently love to perform that truly makes my stomach start to heave.

So this has less to do with homophobia/heterophobia than with ridding ourselves of hypocrisy and simply respecting our differences. I’ll respect your ick factor if you respect mine.

9

I think gay sex is hot. Queer as Folk taught me that. Oh, how I love that show. I even dream about it sometimes. :smiley:

10

They actually have more straight women among their die-hard fanbase than gay men. It’s not surprising really: where else on TV do you get to see incomparably more good looking nekkid boy flesh than female? (As any gay man or straight woman can attest, you see dozens of naked women for every naked guy on screen, and for frontal shots you’re talking easily 100:1 gender inequity.)

Major thanks, smaft. Also, Hr. Thornhill didn’t mention that the “someone who rejoices in the name Bruce Bagemihl” is a trained biologist who has written numerous articles in peer reviewed journals before and having nothing to do with his research on homosexuality in the animal kingdom brought him the modicum of broader fame he received. (Bagemihl’s Ph.D. is in linguistics, but he has postgraduate credits in biology and zoology.)
Not speaking of thornhill, but I have read reviews of Biological Exuberance in which literally the research was dismissed as biased and improbable solely on the fact that Bagemihl himself is gay! (Bagemihl does not discuss his own orientation, but was not terribly hard to out when the book was in the press.) Many, if not most, academic researchers develop their interest in a particular subject or field due to something in their own life experience, whether it’s a father who served in World War II or a family member who died of cancer or a loved one with a mental illness, etc.; Bagemihl has even admitted that he wanted to refute the “doesn’t occur in nature” argument for personal reasons, BUT he refuted it using heavily researched and detailed observations proof read by professionals in the biological sciences.

And what is infelicitous about the name Stonewall Inn? Yes, it’s a primarily gay themed publishing house, yes it’s named after the Stonewall Inn riots, what’s your point? Are openly queer authors by definition incapable of academic integrity? And as a queer author who has written peer reviewed articles, if your answer is yes I will go ahead and pre-order a CITE now.

11

Homosexual anal sex was outlawed until recently…especially in the US. While pedophilia was regarded as fine in ancient Greece…

Customs change… but to think that a hetero man should think its the same thing having anal sex with a woman as having anal sex with a man… thats too much of a jump. Its having sex with a woman that is the most desirable part… not what holes your sticking into.

I've heard gay men (someone in this thread too) talk about women being icky...  :p   So I agree its to each his icky as far as sex goes. While clothed these icky factors shouldn't count. So its not ok to discriminate gays.
12

As I read the OP, “the ick factor” is precisely what he’s objecting to.

I fail to understand what exactly the OP means by “getting real.”

13

Just to clarify . . . I never said women were icky (and lord knows, there are plenty of icky men). I merely meant that it’d be icky, or worse, for **me **to have sex with a woman – even if we were doing an identical act that I enjoy with a man. And this is the same reaction I’d expect from most straight people, regarding gay sex.

14

I think Hoops is trying to get across that homosexuality is really nothing to be disgusted from or scared of or loathed–something always worth pointing out. :slight_smile:

Interesting argument, although I’m not sure it’s solely about the anal sex factor–there are other, preconceived opinions about homosexuality that factor into it.

15

I think you are getting WAY to PC if you expect the ‘ick’ factor to go away. I’m a fully hetero male and there are hetero acts that give me the willies. I have gay friends who I enjoy going out for a beer with or playing an online game with…but they have confided in me that the thought of going down on a woman makes them ill. The thought of going down on a man etc doesn’t exactly make me arroused either. To each his/her own. We might not be able to do away with the ‘ick’ factor, but what we should strive for is tolerance. What folks do in their own bedroom is their own business…just like what I do in mine is mine and my wifes. :wink:

-XT

16

No, the ick factor is not nearly so much about what you’re doing as about whom you’re doing it with. There are plenty of things that I’d love to do with an attractive woman, but I’d be repulsed at the thought of doing them with a hideously ugly woman, or with a man, or with a child, or with a life-size model of Mother Teresa made out of cold oatmeal.

17

Ick. And most of my male freinds (well, the ones I’ve discussed it feel the same) feel the same.

YMMV.

18

Ick. And most of my male freinds (well, the ones I’ve discussed it feel the same) feel the same.

YMMV.

19

Someday, I’ll hit preview.

20

BTW, Hoops, your thread title made me think you were asking for a date. Thanks for getting my hopes up and dashing them!