qpw3141, you are an idiot

The BBQ Pit
1

You are a flaming, shit-eating, moron who may very well be pissing himself and drooling onto his keyboard as he reads this. You claim to have read all of Richard Dawkins’ books and yet you lack the most basic grasp of how science works.

In this thread you make the bizarre claim that you believe that humans evolved the trait to be repulsed by seeing homosexual behavior, because being visually repulsed by this would encourage them to have heterosexual sex. The positive reinforcement of desiring heterosexual sex more than covers our need to reproduce. We don’t need negative reinforcement to prevent us from having non-procreative sex. No other animal needs that. The desire of a male to fuck a female is plenty strong enough without him needing to be sent into dry heaves every time he sees another male’s penis. That is not how evolution works, you goddamned fucking imbecile.

Here is where you begin your idiocy:

No cites. No scientific back up. Just a “just so” explanation that assumes cultural expectations (ie, don’t fuck your sister) are actually evolved traits. Cultural expectations which are not universal, yet every example of any of those traits not being universal is ignored by you.

Look, you want to go ramble around in IMHO with your stupid, baseless opinion, go right ahead, but refusing to offer even the vaguest of cites or debate in good faith when you are in a forum specifically dedicated to debate makes you look like a big, stupid douchebag.

No, it doesn’t, Winky. You started the assertion. You start the cites. That is how debate and theory work. I even tossed out a link to an article about a study which actively proves women experience genital arousal when watching sex, regardless of whether the sex they’re watching matches their orientation or not. A study which flat out disproves your retarded claim. You didn’t even comment on it. Did you read it? Probably not. You were probably too busy pissing yourself like the keyboard pounding, emoticon abusing idiot you are.

This makes me laugh. Seriously. Every time I read that paragraph I start laughing again because of how fucking moronic you are. I claim to hold science dear, but–onoes!–as an example of my hypocrisy I demand proof of things before I believe them. Dear God, what would happen if scientists started doing this all across the world? They might perform experiments and studies and they might refuse to act on prejudice and stupidity that lacks evidence! How horrible that would be!

This is not about politics or my personal viewpoint, though you clearly cannot fathom that. This is about you being a logic raping shit-brain. If somebody had a study which showed there was actually an innate revulsion response in heterosexual human beings, sans culture, when presented with homosexuality, I would be fascinated by that, as I am fascinated by all insights into human nature. You haven’t offered that. You have just made science your beaten, cum-stained bitch.

2

I think qpw needs to show that heterosexuals have an innate repulsion to homosexual sex. I am a heterosexual and I don’t. I don’t have any interest in it, but I don’t feel any aversion about it.

I wonder if QPW knows about the studies which show that males who verbally express the most repulsion to male-male sex show more sexual arousal to viewing videos of it than males who do not express homophobic or aversive opinions about it. If anything, I believe the evidence really suggest that the repulsion these guys claim to feel is really grounded in psychological discomfort with their own attractions and arousals.

3

How would you study that?

"On a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being completely disagree and 10 being completely agree, rate your reaction to the following: Homosexuality is repulsive.

All right, thank you- no, we’re not quite done. If you’ll excuse me while I turn on the projector…"

4

It’s called a penile plethysmograph - aka a “peter meter.”

5

So they do it more or less as I described? Wow.

6

Which has to be one of the worst jobs to have when you meet the future in-laws.

“I’m a penile plethysmograph technician. I measure erections while men watch porn. For science.”

7

They hook up electronic sensors to them (including their junk) to measure arousal, heart rate, etc. The bigger the 'phobe, the more wood they get from watching gay porn.

8

No, it’s not self reported. Boners don’t lie.

9

I signed up for one of those peter meter studies in college once for credit in a psych class (the sheet said it involved getting rigged up and watching pr0n, but didn’t say exectly waht the subjects would be watching), but I chickened out and didn’t go.

10

It was really only a hypothesis.

It was only the repressed foaming at the mouth response from Peeta (who finally let it all out above - I’m sure he feels a lot better now :D), that caused me to really spend any time on the subject.

I said in the original thread that I don’t think there’s any great difference for a male heterosexual between having sex with a man and having sex with a woman that he finds unattractive. This isn’t some massive put down of homosexuals.

I have to say that I find your claim that you feel no revulsion to homosexual sex disingenuous. I don’t feel any revulsion to other people participating in homosexual sex. I just feel somewhat revolted at the idea of doing it myself. In exactly the same way I feel revolted at the idea of having sex with, for example, Margret Thatcher.

If you are you saying that you don’t feel any revulsion to homosexual encounters, does that mean that you would be amenable to sucking off another man if there was some minor benefit to your doing so?

11

I never said that the subjects would self-report their arousal, only their stated homophobia.

Edit: Is it possible to be genuinely revolted by something and still achieve an erection because of it? Don’t some people achieve erections when nervous, for example?

I can only imagine the embarrassed reactions of the self-described homophobes when they got wood while watching gay porn in front of the researchers. :smiley:

12

Ok, yeah, that’s actually right then. They fill out questionaires before they get wired up.

13

There is a difference between lack of desire and revulsion, unless you don’t know what the word means (which, given the fact that you don’t understand how science works, is entirely possible). Revulsion is a violent repugnance and dislike. Lack of desire is just that. One can be turned off or annoyed with something they don’t want to do. One can avoid ever, ever doing something they don’t want to do. One does not need to be experiencing revulsion in order to do any of those things. Many people lack desire to engage in same-sex behavior, but they aren’t repulsed by it.

I sincerely doubt that all the men throughout history who have used other men for their sexual gratification were all homosexuals. Pederasty was an institution in ancient Greece, but it was also widespread in feudal Japan and across the Middle East, up until very recently. Very recently. There are a number of writings from westerners who found themselves offered up a pretty young boy by Arabs. But there were also relations between men as equals. T. E. Lawrence (AKA Lawrence of Arabia) wrote extensively about the love between Arab warriors. In Rome and many other places it was perfectly acceptable for quite some time for a citizen to penetrate a man of lower station. In all of these societies, there are records of men who had no sexual contact with other men at all, yet those who did have sexual contact with other men was at the very least a large minority if not the majority. When women are kept locked away as breeding stock and there’s no cultural taboo against mounting another man, suddenly those slave boys start looking a lot more interesting. They likely were what we’d think of as heterosexuals, only they lacked a cultural bias against “relieving their needs” on another man.

The focus on sexual preference for a very, very long time wasn’t on male/female but on penetrator/penetratee. It was only relatively recently in the grand scheme of things that the man penetrating was seen as aberrant. And with that shift in viewpoint, suddenly it wasn’t just gross to be penetrated. Now it was gross to penetrate a man, too! Gosh, it’s amazing how quickly evolution works.

This entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy covers most of this in regards to the Greeks and Romans. T. E. Lawrence’s own writings are a fine source on the casual attitude toward same-sex relations among the Arabs he encountered.

14

Not revulsion, just complete disinterest. The same as the idea of sucking on a table leg.

15

In fact, American soldiers in Afghanistan have had this experience within recent months.

As long as it’s just the two men, right, not a group scenario with exploited women?

16

That whole thread makes no sense to me. Why are people even accepting his assertion that straight people find homosexuality revolting in the first place? I’m a straight woman, and I both gay male and lesbian porn to be freaking hot. And I’m hardly alone on this.

I’ve been kind of inexplicably tired for the last few days. Maybe that’s why I’m so confused.

17

Kyla, you are absolutely not alone. Nobody is really accepting what he’s saying except those in that thread who entered with that idea in the first place. He just keeps asserting it with no proof as though it’s a fact. That isn’t something you can debate because he refuses to even offer anything to debate. Just smugly throwing his stupid opinion out there like a big turd.

18

I shall go forth and look at pix of two chicks going at it, for science. And some divx too, for science.

19

Well, that all depends. I’ve certainly known some lying pricks in my time, not to mention a few conniving dickheads.

20

The crowds filling up Suzie Wong and Sheba’s bars down in Soi Cowboy here in Bangkok for the nightly live multiple-lesbian sex shows are certainly not repulsed by lesbian behavior. Hmmm, I’ll have to go see if this still holds true, as it’s been maybe days since I last went.