[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If a guy strapped you down and blew you, you would reach orgasm. It’s not an emotional thing, it’s mechanical.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to sound like the hyper-hetero here, but I’m pretty sure this would NOT be the case with me. [/quote]
What if you didn’t know whether it was a man or a woman who was blowing you?[/quote]
Call me a prude, but I typically like to try and find out beforehand.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Zeb- if you were blindfolded and a guy blew you, but you thought it was a girl and you came, would that make you gay?[/quote]
You know I’m just not ready to have you or your little sycophant change the subject just yet.
You first said that your male “friend” had sex with another man, didn’t like it so he decided to go back to women. I said he must be a bisexual.
You then said noooooooo plenty of males who arenot bisexual or homosexual have sex with other males.
I called you on that as being full of shit (and you are).
Um…what happened to that argument Captain? You dropping it now?
Yep, looks like it. And right after you got your little sycophant maky to follow you.
Anyway I don’t think that I’m ready to have the subject changed just yet. So let’s get back to your “friend” and all of those heterosexual males who have sex with other men.
LOL – You are a couple of beauties…[/quote]
You have absolutely no ability to see how concepts connect in an argument, do you?
I’m getting back there. Answer the question.[/quote]
That’s not where this discussion began. You are trying to change the subject by talking about “arousal points.” Want me to repeat it again? You said that your male “friend” had sex with another man but he is not gay or bisexual. How is it that you disagree (and in fact call them liars) with Masters and Johnson who clearly state that when men have sex with other men they are either homosexual, or bisexual?
There will be no subject change got it?
You began this nonsense with that supposition and you will continue forth with it in this discussion. Now back it up or take a hike!
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
If a guy strapped you down and blew you, you would reach orgasm. It’s not an emotional thing, it’s mechanical.
[/quote]
I’m not trying to sound like the hyper-hetero here, but I’m pretty sure this would NOT be the case with me. [/quote]
What if you didn’t know whether it was a man or a woman who was blowing you?[/quote]
Call me a prude, but I typically like to try and find out beforehand. [/quote]
Cortes, my friend, when you live in the world of the liberal pc anything goes. And of course there is NEVER a moral judgement made on anything you do. And that is because in their world there is no right or wrong. It’s a play ground of subjective reasoning mixed with all kinds of temporary desire for God only knows what.
Zeb- actually, the conversation began when you questioned whether it was possible for a man who had sex with women for years and then came out to really be gay. I responded that, contrary to common notion among those who have never had sex that didn’t equal up to what they were expecting, you need to have sex to find out what you like.
I pointed out that I have known people who had sex with their same sex in various ways and decided they didn’t like it. I even posted a link showing that bisexual men actually don’t even have a bisexual arousal pattern- 75% of them show the gay arousal pattern when exposed to visual stimuli and 25% show the straight arousal pattern, and NONE show a 50-50% degree of arousal to either sex.
This means that what they think they are attracted to and what their body is actually responding to is different. It also shows that homosexuality is a biologically confirmed difference. And it shows that men can have sex with other men when they show very little arousal to men. You still want to make this a black and white issue and say that “if you are capable of having an orgasm to something that MUST mean you are infact attracted mentally to that thing.”
This is simply not true. Orgasm, as pointed out numerous times, is a mechanical response to nerve ending stimuli. Arousal, as I am defining it, is a physiological response to mental stimuli. If you define arousal as the ability to orgasm to something and say that this means you are actually attracted to that thing, you MUST conclude that you are attracted to your hand, and anything else you have ever used to get yourself off.
It would mean that your wife is attracted to any toys she has. Basically, your logic that orgasm=attraction is ridiculous.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Zeb- actually, the conversation began when you questioned whether it was possible for a man who had sex with women for years and then came out to really be gay. I responded that, contrary to common notion among those who have never had sex that didn’t equal up to what they were expecting, you need to have sex to find out what you like.
I pointed out that I have known people who had sex with their same sex in various ways and decided they didn’t like it. I even posted a link showing that bisexual men actually don’t even have a bisexual arousal pattern- 75% of them show the gay arousal pattern when exposed to visual stimuli and 25% show the straight arousal pattern, and NONE show a 50-50% degree of arousal to either sex.
This means that what they think they are attracted to and what their body is actually responding to is different. It also shows that homosexuality is a biologically confirmed difference. And it shows that men can have sex with other men when they show very little arousal to men. You still want to make this a black and white issue and say that “if you are capable of having an orgasm to something that MUST mean you are infact attracted mentally to that thing.”
This is simply not true. Orgasm, as pointed out numerous times, is a mechanical response to nerve ending stimuli. Arousal, as I am defining it, is a physiological response to mental stimuli. If you define arousal as the ability to orgasm to something and say that this means you are actually attracted to that thing, you MUST conclude that you are attracted to your hand, and anything else you have ever used to get yourself off.
It would mean that your wife is attracted to any toys she has. Basically, your logic that orgasm=attraction is ridiculous.[/quote]
And your logic that heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men is laughable. Now get busy and try to prove your foolish supposition.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Zeb- actually, the conversation began when you questioned whether it was possible for a man who had sex with women for years and then came out to really be gay. I responded that, contrary to common notion among those who have never had sex that didn’t equal up to what they were expecting, you need to have sex to find out what you like.
I pointed out that I have known people who had sex with their same sex in various ways and decided they didn’t like it. I even posted a link showing that bisexual men actually don’t even have a bisexual arousal pattern- 75% of them show the gay arousal pattern when exposed to visual stimuli and 25% show the straight arousal pattern, and NONE show a 50-50% degree of arousal to either sex.
This means that what they think they are attracted to and what their body is actually responding to is different. It also shows that homosexuality is a biologically confirmed difference. And it shows that men can have sex with other men when they show very little arousal to men. You still want to make this a black and white issue and say that “if you are capable of having an orgasm to something that MUST mean you are infact attracted mentally to that thing.”
This is simply not true. Orgasm, as pointed out numerous times, is a mechanical response to nerve ending stimuli. Arousal, as I am defining it, is a physiological response to mental stimuli. If you define arousal as the ability to orgasm to something and say that this means you are actually attracted to that thing, you MUST conclude that you are attracted to your hand, and anything else you have ever used to get yourself off.
It would mean that your wife is attracted to any toys she has. Basically, your logic that orgasm=attraction is ridiculous.[/quote]
And your logic that heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men is laughable. Now get busy and try to prove your foolish supposition. [/quote]
I never said heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men. I said they are capable of orgasm with other men. You defined that as “enjoy”. I pointed out above that “capable of orgasm”=“enjoy and aroused by” is a ridiculous assumption on your part. You chose to completely ignore that and continue saying I said something which I didn’t.
Awesome.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Zeb- actually, the conversation began when you questioned whether it was possible for a man who had sex with women for years and then came out to really be gay. I responded that, contrary to common notion among those who have never had sex that didn’t equal up to what they were expecting, you need to have sex to find out what you like.
I pointed out that I have known people who had sex with their same sex in various ways and decided they didn’t like it. I even posted a link showing that bisexual men actually don’t even have a bisexual arousal pattern- 75% of them show the gay arousal pattern when exposed to visual stimuli and 25% show the straight arousal pattern, and NONE show a 50-50% degree of arousal to either sex.
This means that what they think they are attracted to and what their body is actually responding to is different. It also shows that homosexuality is a biologically confirmed difference. And it shows that men can have sex with other men when they show very little arousal to men. You still want to make this a black and white issue and say that “if you are capable of having an orgasm to something that MUST mean you are infact attracted mentally to that thing.”
This is simply not true. Orgasm, as pointed out numerous times, is a mechanical response to nerve ending stimuli. Arousal, as I am defining it, is a physiological response to mental stimuli. If you define arousal as the ability to orgasm to something and say that this means you are actually attracted to that thing, you MUST conclude that you are attracted to your hand, and anything else you have ever used to get yourself off.
It would mean that your wife is attracted to any toys she has. Basically, your logic that orgasm=attraction is ridiculous.[/quote]
And your logic that heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men is laughable. Now get busy and try to prove your foolish supposition. [/quote]
I never said heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men. I said they are capable of orgasm with other men. You defined that as “enjoy”. I pointed out above that “capable of orgasm”=“enjoy and aroused by” is a ridiculous assumption on your part. You chose to completely ignore that and continue saying I said something which I didn’t.
Awesome.[/quote]
Hey Captain Dim Wit still at it huh?
You’ve said a few dumb things (well more than a few at this point).
Here’s one:
Yeah sure heterosexual men have sex with other men all the time-- 
And here is another gem:
The most renown researchers in human sexuality just don’t know a thing compared a 27 year old Internet expert.
Excellent!
In fact, we don’t need Masters and Johnson to know people can leave the homo lifestyle. If you’re too lazy to search the topic yourself, here are a few links:
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/mans.php
http://www.saltshakers.org.au/issues/homosexuality/574-change-is-possible
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[/quote]
If you want to have your bias confirmed you’d go to a site that does exactly that, confirm your bias.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[/quote]
If you want to have your bias confirmed you’d go to a site that does exactly that, confirm your bias.[/quote]
Why does going to a place that I know will list a different view confirm my bias? I may be going there precisely because I have no bias and just want to look at an opposing view. Can I go to a pro-evolution website and get the same info?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[/quote]
If you want to have your bias confirmed you’d go to a site that does exactly that, confirm your bias.[/quote]
Why does going to a place that I know will list a different view confirm my bias? I may be going there precisely because I have no bias and just want to look at an opposing view. Can I go to a pro-evolution website and get the same info?[/quote]
Are you saying you have no opinion on gay adoption/marriage/issues regarding whether homosexuality is innate or a choice?
Are you saying you are looking for education on these matters?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[/quote]
If you want to have your bias confirmed you’d go to a site that does exactly that, confirm your bias.[/quote]
Why does going to a place that I know will list a different view confirm my bias? I may be going there precisely because I have no bias and just want to look at an opposing view. Can I go to a pro-evolution website and get the same info?[/quote]
Are you saying you have no opinion on gay adoption/marriage/issues regarding whether homosexuality is innate or a choice?
Are you saying you are looking for education on these matters?
[/quote]
Of course he’s not looking for education, which is why I didn’t bother reposting for him the research I’ve been posting for years. If he were objective enough to consider the facts, he would listen to what every major medical and mental health organization has concluded, based on 40 years of research.
Obviously, he’s not biased at all. The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, and every other major health organization must be biased because they disagree with him.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Zeb- actually, the conversation began when you questioned whether it was possible for a man who had sex with women for years and then came out to really be gay. I responded that, contrary to common notion among those who have never had sex that didn’t equal up to what they were expecting, you need to have sex to find out what you like.
I pointed out that I have known people who had sex with their same sex in various ways and decided they didn’t like it. I even posted a link showing that bisexual men actually don’t even have a bisexual arousal pattern- 75% of them show the gay arousal pattern when exposed to visual stimuli and 25% show the straight arousal pattern, and NONE show a 50-50% degree of arousal to either sex.
This means that what they think they are attracted to and what their body is actually responding to is different. It also shows that homosexuality is a biologically confirmed difference. And it shows that men can have sex with other men when they show very little arousal to men. You still want to make this a black and white issue and say that “if you are capable of having an orgasm to something that MUST mean you are infact attracted mentally to that thing.”
This is simply not true. Orgasm, as pointed out numerous times, is a mechanical response to nerve ending stimuli. Arousal, as I am defining it, is a physiological response to mental stimuli. If you define arousal as the ability to orgasm to something and say that this means you are actually attracted to that thing, you MUST conclude that you are attracted to your hand, and anything else you have ever used to get yourself off.
It would mean that your wife is attracted to any toys she has. Basically, your logic that orgasm=attraction is ridiculous.[/quote]
And your logic that heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men is laughable. Now get busy and try to prove your foolish supposition. [/quote]
I never said heterosexual men enjoy sex with other men. I said they are capable of orgasm with other men. You defined that as “enjoy”. I pointed out above that “capable of orgasm”=“enjoy and aroused by” is a ridiculous assumption on your part. You chose to completely ignore that and continue saying I said something which I didn’t.
Awesome.[/quote]
Hey Captain Dim Wit still at it huh?
You’ve said a few dumb things (well more than a few at this point).
Here’s one:
Yeah sure heterosexual men have sex with other men all the time--
And here is another gem:
The most renown researchers in human sexuality just don’t know a thing compared a 27 year old Internet expert.
Excellent![/quote]
Yes, because lying about data on conversion success in one book=don’t know anything, and my ability to post a link about another expert who looked into it=I know everything (love how you edited out that link! Nice selective posting!!!)
As usual, awesome logic.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
Yes, because lying about data on conversion success in one book=don’t know anything, and my ability to post a link about another expert who looked into it=I know everything (love how you edited out that link! Nice selective posting!!!)
As usual, awesome logic.
[/quote]
I don’t think you’re in any position to question someone else’s logic. Especially in light of the fact that you claim heterosexual men have sex with other men. After reading that anyone would have taken you to task. And of course I did. :)…You don’t like that huh? 
And questioning Masters & Johnson shows your insecurity about the ludicrous point you’ve tried (in vain) to drive home. As the great Masters & Johnson would disagree with you. But I can only repeat what I’ve been saying, what do they know compared to a 27 year old Internet “expert.”
Let’s do more of this it’s still fun.
Zeb is right, men who once experimented sex with a man when they were teenagers are not true heterosexuals.
By definition.
They are closeted bisexuals, or bisexuals with an extreme preference for women.
On the other hand, grown up men who spend hours each days looking at unclothed athletic male bodies, but who never touch a male body (outside of a sports field) are unquestionably heterosexuals.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Right, and if you want to learn about evolution you’d go to answersingenesis.org, right?[/quote]
If I wanted to learn what was wrong with evolution, I might go there. Where would you go if you wanted to find out what was wrong with evolution? What’s your point anyway?
[/quote]
If you want to have your bias confirmed you’d go to a site that does exactly that, confirm your bias.[/quote]
Why does going to a place that I know will list a different view confirm my bias? I may be going there precisely because I have no bias and just want to look at an opposing view. Can I go to a pro-evolution website and get the same info?[/quote]
Are you saying you have no opinion on gay adoption/marriage/issues regarding whether homosexuality is innate or a choice?
Are you saying you are looking for education on these matters?
[/quote]
Of course he’s not looking for education, which is why I didn’t bother reposting for him the research I’ve been posting for years. If he were objective enough to consider the facts, he would listen to what every major medical and mental health organization has concluded, based on 40 years of research.
Obviously, he’s not biased at all. The American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of Social Workers, and every other major health organization must be biased because they disagree with him.
[/quote]
Yeah well, considering how long they rode the lipid hypothesis, its not completely out of the question.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Zeb is right, men who once experimented sex with a man when they were teenagers are not true heterosexuals.
By definition.
They are closeted bisexuals, or bisexuals with an extreme preference for women.
On the other hand, grown up men who spend hours each days looking at unclothed athletic male bodies, but who never touch a male body (outside of a sports field) are unquestionably heterosexuals.
[/quote]
heterosexual (Ë?hÉ?tÉ?rÉ?Ê?Ë?sÉ?ksjÊ?É?l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
â?? n
Hmmm. It doesn’t say “has sex with the opposite sex”. That is weird.
Kamui- Are you suggesting that closet gays who have never acted on their desires are by definition heterosexual?
How should we define these people, then?