Last night, I was in bed (I won't get into details) trying to sleep when a thought came to mind...

Love making between gay guys seems highly time-consuming and unromantic. I mean, there's MAYBE two ways that two gays can "finish" at the same time - 69 and penal-fencing (need I explain?). And those two ways are not really all that deserving of the title "love making"... more like "f--- buddies." Anyways, so the thought came to mind that... If guys are genetically gay (born gay or bi), then they should be born with like, a vaginal hole next to their penis, so that they can have a romantic way of, er, having sex. See what I mean?

Errr... Any thoughts?

(I'm very sorry if this is TOO risqué... )

There is no such thing as "genetically gay." Of course, that doesn't mean I really care if you're gay, but it's not genetic. That's like saying I'm genetically awesome. My kid could be lame, it'd just happen.

Anyways, this raises the question of "Le f***!?"

I belive this violates the ToS... ._. it's borderline though, so I'll leave it open unless another mod feels the need to close it.

And I don't think you really grasp the concept of evolution, homosexual males wouldn't get a pleasure hole because it isn't NEEDED.

...That was the most disturbing thing I've ever heard in my life...

.-. agreed.

Somehow I highly doubt this violates the ToS, if some of the other things we've seen on this forum have scraped by. I say it's fine. A little disturbing, but it's fine.

:huh: Puff...Don't mention that ever again please.*Shudders*







:blink: ...*shudders again*

Cripes, all you americans sound like homophobians.

Err, frankly speaking, men's G-spot is the most accessable through the ass. You don't really need them both be doing it with their penises.

The closest thing to a genetical gay is a hermaphrodite :/

Kirby: You can be born gay. It's a genetic mix up: your genes were made to like one sex, but you come out that sex... yada yada. I'm genetically mixed...

Esgal: It makes me sad that a lot of Americans are homophobic. And, I was trying to avoid their asses, because anal is disgusting and it's time consuming and it's not romantic, or whatever you want to call it.

I told my friends in lunch about this thought; a few, if not all, of them liked it.

Al-X: It doesn't have to be a PLEASURE HOLE. Just a hole for penal stimulation. I'd think that "penal-fencing" would be very, um, what's the word? Very.. problematic? If you haven't noticed (I hope you have) penises throb, so the whole rubbing-them-together wouldn't be... easy; while one is going one way, the other may be going the other way, and so on...

I can see your point Puff, I guess if they are born gay then I think that would be a proper uh..... Part of the body for males to have if they are gay. But then anouther wuestion pops into my head, If women are born as lesbian would they also have a penis as well? or would just a vagina suffice for them

That's a good point. I guess it could go either way. But two holes are easier to opperate than two sticks. So, while it'd be fun, I think that just vaginas could suffice. Oh! And with tribadism, vaginas can't move and throb all over the place, so that'd also be easier, methinks.

The thought just occured to me, some people really are born with both sex's genitals. I forget what it's called, though...

Intersexuals I think

It's not born "gay." Maybe you can be born with a chemical imbalance causing you to be attracted to men, but you're not born gay.

Hermaphordites have a penis and a vagina.

You contradicted yourself, Kirbs. You understand what you just said, yes? If you have a chemical imbalance that makes you attracted to males, what does that make you? Gay. Thus, some males are born gay. Case closed.

Chemical imbalance does not make you gay. You're not born gay, and neither are you born straight. I'm sure that there are plenty of men out there with this chemical imbalance that have a wife with children, just as I'm sure there are men out there without the imbalance taking it up the ass right now. Being gay or straight is determined on how you act, not by what you may or may not be born with.

In essence you seem to be saying that gay men should be born women. . .

You're Christian/Catholic, aren't you?

So you mean to say that people are TAUGHT how to be gay and lesbian? Taught being the key word in there. Taught, so that people have a reason to think gays and lesbians and bis are disgusting, sick creatures that need "straightness therapy."

There was a study that looked at two guys talking. One was gay, one was straight. What they did was put them into a room and taped them talking and such. Then they got a group of people to watch the video (WITHOUT SOUND) to see if they could distinguish between the gay and the straight. Could they? Yeah. By gestures.

And guess what, if you ask a person that's gay/lesbian/bi if they knew when they were younger that they were "different." Most of them would say yes. Hell, I knew I was different when I was younger. I'm genetically/chemically bi.

Most people aren't TAUGHT to be homosecual; they just areso when they're being developed in the womb, then as a baby, and so fourth. Think about it, 3 year olds don't know what a "gay" or "lesbian" is. What do they care? You can't teach them to be that way.

Pretty soon I'm going to pull out my psychology notes for child development.

EDIT: Karn... Not necessarily. But sure.

Puff, stop assuming and trying to defend against points I never make. It just leads to lots of crap that I don't want to have to read through. Seriously.

Then be more clear if you're going to try and disagree.


Oooh. That's sounds arrogant. Eww. But I like this topic. Seriously. So...

"This topic" meaning sex ed-ish stuff.

I only mean that the only paragraphs dealing in response to my post were 4 and 5. The others were responding to things I MIGHT have said, not what I had. But of course, if I wished to defend the topics that were actually in response I would have to respond to the ones that didn't, which I really didn't feel like doing.

Among other things, it's been shown that people who were sexually abused as kids are more disposed to be homosexuals. There are lots of studies showing apparent correlations between homosexuality and environmental factors; it's probably gonna be impossible to reasonably prove homosexuality is more genes or more environment any time soon, so I wouldn't count either over the other.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, now you guys are making homosexuality sound like some disease that can be cured (which is exactly what many scientists thought during some time). I don't believe you get taught to be gay, because since everyone seems to use gay as an insult, wouldn't there be even less homos in the world?

Look, how did this topic go from it's original course over to people complaining over gayness?

I'm not complaining over gay. I am partially gay; which I've already stated.

Sure, the environment is a good factor. . . Okay, if you gather up a whole bunch of homosexuals and ask them what went on in their childhood, you could rule out the people that will admittently say "I was sexaully haressed," etc... As for the others, they either have a chemical imbalance, or they were introduced to it in Junior High or High School.

At first, when I started feeling that I was bisexual, I thought it was because of something I did in 7th or 8th grade with a female friend. But then I thought further back... I've always been attracted to the "curves" of a female, per se...

Which brings onto another off-topic question: Why does everyone always assume that when someone says "most of you" or "some guys" in a text, the reader automatically assume we're talking about them?

Err, sorry about that, won't happen again.

Edit:Why does some of my words get cancelled out when I type a text? Has my brain gone over to "emergency use" only?

It's one of those "just making sure" things. And have you noticed that when you say "most of you," etc.. the people you're pin-pointing don't say anything in defense?

If they think they can fool me, they're thinking wrong.

But that's BESIDES the point. Forget my pointless rambling, and let's get back to the topic at hand. Or uh, what's the most interesting to read about.

Puff. You need help if you think like that a lot..... I'm gonna puke now.

I probably do. But I don't care. I like that I think differently, thanks. It makes things more interesting.

And, damn it, you just depressed me. :"(

I don't think it's a "better" or "worse" thing necessarily. There's correlations which link it to both "good", "bad", and "mundane" things environmentally. I just wanted to clarify in case my comment about environmental conditioning was taken the wrong way.

A very good friend of mine best friends is a lesbian. I think it's because I can talk around her about chicks and, if anything, she'll agree with my sentiments. And yet they aren't competition because the girls they'll go with are equally unavailable. And gay guys just mean less competition - and this is a real postive thing, since the best looking guy in my school according to most girls is gay.

The only homosexuality I can think of that seems wrong to me is the greek version of it - man to man love was often a good deal more praiseworthy than man to woman, and we'll notice that even for an ancient kingdom Athens was a really sexist nation (the word used is phallocracy), though in fairness their culture was pretty kickass in terms of producing stuff.

I have to admit Puff seems to know not just a little but a lot more than me, having both personal experience and clear research/interest/w/e in the topic, so is probably right or more right than I am about environmental VS genetic stuff.

Sadly I can't make an unbiased view on this, as at my school, it's more of a fad, which disgusts me. We have one girl that swears up and down she's a lesbian and hates guys, but every chance she gets...Well she contradicts herself, if you get me. And sadly that's more that 80% of the girls at our school. And 50% of the guys.

So in my opinion, I think environment affects those decisions more.

I am one of the most homophobic people you will ever meet. I believe that environment is what causes homosexuality, with merely a minor nod to "chemical imbalances".

This past summer before I moved from the U.S., one of my first cousins admitted to me via letter that he was gay. I don't talk to him much any more.

Wait. Gay guys like booty, not cunt. So even if gay guys had cunts, they'd still screw the booty.

Valter, you're a fu...

Wait, that makes sense. :huh:

Nah, I know of a guy on another forum who's had a partner for 10 years and doesn't do anal, take or give.

I don't know the exact details of what he does do, but I'm not brown-nosy enough to ask any more than he said.

And by that logic I'd be alright with guys too, but I'm not.