"49% Of Young Adults Are Not Straight"

So if a woman enjoys the sight of her own body, she is narcissistic; and if a guy enjoys the sight of his own body he is homosexual?

Also, lipstick, hair, and clothes are considered part of sex and sexuality for women?

Putting on makeup before a date is like putting on warpaint because having sex is like being in a war, but only if you aren't part lesbian?

Is that right?

 

really, you look at women's eyes when they're looking at couches?

 

100% women love new carpeting..=0

 

I dispise the concept of "really gay" or "really straight" or "really.... anything", when its used to identify someone as different than they identify themselves. "You're really not in love with them" is another example.

If someone says they are straight and acts like they are straight (makes passes towards the opposite gender), then they are straight.

What people do is what people "really" are. There is no inner, hidden self that is "more real" than the outer person (i.e. what that person does)

I may have an impulse, and I may decide to act on that impulse or not. The creative part of me is not more real, not more of ME, than the editor that decides what I do.

The real me is the impulse generating part plus the editor. What I really am is the impulses that the editor chooses to exhibit.

If a person says that they are straight and acts it, then they are straight. The sexual impulses that make it out of one's mouth, that make it out to the hand reaching for a particular body part, those are the real person, not the mix of unedited impulses.

A person is both the impassive part and the editor part. If the sum of those (i.e. their actions) is heterosexual, then that person is heterosexual.


(Is the unedited version of this post, where I swapped negatives in a couple of sentences more "real" than the one you are reading. No its not, this post, the edited post is the real reflection of my thoughts. The editor is as real and as much a part of me as the creative impulse generator.)

(Isn't someone deciding that you "really" want to have sex, you just don't know it or are suppressing it, called date rape? The concept of "really ..." is just a way to take power from someone and give it to the person who "knows" what the other "really" is.)

 

That makes better sense to me, Mike, than denying that other impulses exist at a base level.

 

I don't have a scientific study to quote, but I would be highly skeptical of any recent survey that doesn't report significantly different attitudes about bisexuality now versus 25 years ago.

I knew a lot of wild party girls in college, and we had all been socially conditioned to distance ourselves from homosexuality and the bisexual label. Only a few of us were willing to try bisexual practices seen in porn movies that were considered to be cutting edge for that time, and we didn't know exactly what to say or think about it afterward. I only knew one girl who referred to herself as bisexual. The rest of us just said we were doing it to turn the guys on.

Two of my old friends now have daughters old enough to be sexually active, and they consider the bisexual label to be trendy and cool. They say several of their female friends regularly fuck each other, don't think it's a big deal, and all plan to marry a man and have kids someday.

Not long ago, we had a thread on here about women's willingness to date bisexual men. Not a scientific poll by any means, but there was an obvious generational split. Older women were uncomfortable with the concept, younger ones were okay with it.

So, if people are being honest on these surveys, the numbers should be different.

My girlfriends shave down there.

 

You wish

I agree. Well, it obviously matters to some what they call themselves but in essence it doesn't.

This is an assumption. Maybe based on your own perspective (which you are entitled to naturally) and projecting it on every other male (not really useful). Some women are indeed narcisstic but same counts for certain men of course (even heterosexuals! :dizzy2: )

Maybe in general homosexual males express their narcisstic tendencies more openly. But is there something wrong with enjoying the sight of your own body? Why do you think other heterosexual guys have a problem with that just because you think it indicates he's possibly gay?

I think that percentage is higher.

 

These studies are always biased. I assure you that this survey was taken on a very liberal college campus.

The other day, within an hour I saw two separate studies that said 20% of american kids were "food insecure" and another that said 38% of kids are obese. I doubt both sets of numbers.

I could go out with an agenda and a list of questions pertaining to whatever agenda it is I have, and come back with glowing numbers to support my cause.

 

NASA said there was a 99.9% chance a major earthquake of 5.0 or greater was going to hit LA before 2019. And I guess, after throwing numbers out there that left little wiggle room, they recanted and basically said that they didn't 100% say an earthquake was going to hit. They said there was a chance that it wouldn't happen at all. A like .1% chance it wouldn't?!?!?!

Figures don't lie, but liars will figure..............

 

It's good to be skeptical about those numbers but even if they are a few percent off doesn't necessarily mean either of those studies are completely centered to suit an agenda. It is very likely both groups of kids are a real concern.

 

Tired of that back in my day argument

Bisexuality just as hidden nowadays as it was 50 years ago, no real difference, the main reasons being they dont want to mess up their chances with the opposite sex or they are worried about rumour or gossip or reputation

Young girls on some sleep over 50 years ago ready to have a fiddle with each other under the covers, not like they are going to suddenly stop and say to each other "oh no, our parents didnt tell us or we werent told in school we were allowed to be moderately bisexual"

That sounds more like the possibility didnt register with YOU or the occasion never presented itself to YOU, you didnt start doing it till later on in life, and every other girls experience has to be similar to yours, blame the era for YOU being too conservative at the time.



As for the 100, 0% thing. When it comes to normal everyday heterosexuals that 100/0% would describe those that do actually go their whole lives with only one partner, you dont believe they exist? you dont believe there are any people that go their whole lives never having sex? Never wanting to? There arent any people that go their whole lives not even sure what sex they are?

The 'For the Negative" in this debate always ends up sounding like everyone is supposed to be kind of like them, cos its too hard to understand those who arent, or to make themselves feel better about things about themselves they dont feel are 'normal'

I dont think anyone really believes there arent those on the extreme upper and lower bounds of whichever range

 

Thank god I have somebody from Australia here to tell me what my university was like.

If somebody has ever had a homosexual thought, they aren't 100% straight. They can be very close to 100% but not all the way there. I don't think you get the idea of the spectrum. Somebody who acts on their gay interest is more gay than somebody who doesn't.

 

If the numbers are off................? If the numbers are off, the results are useless. Either be 100% honest and report the facts or stay at home and keep your ass planted on the couch watching Oprah.

 

Yeah if they are off because it is a dishonest report then it would be useless. I ment that that statistic numbers from polls and research about psychological and mental disorders and stuff are rarely 100% right. It's always useful to keep that in our minds. It doesn't necessarily mean the results are deliberately bend in a certain direction. It is good to keep that possibility in mind also, but it would be stupid to conclude it without certainty and just because we don't like the results.

First of all, having a homosexual thought for whatever reason does not make someone 1% gay or not. That would be between our heads.

Secondly: You are talking about heterosexuals who do have homosexual thoughts and use them for your example of how no one can be 100% this or that.
But it seems all Gorilla was talking about was those without homosexual thought (other when people thinking about the sujbect of homosexuality because it is just out there of course). He's merely saying that there are people who never had a homosexual thought and/or would never act upon them, and therefore that there are people that fit in the 0 or 100%. Hey, it may not be any majority but such people are out there too. Seems like he's not the one who's not getting the full spectrum here.

 

I understand what he said. I just don't agree with it.

I especially disagree with the idea that thoughts don't matter unless you act on them.

 

I didn't really notice that idea. Everybody in our society who knows about homosexuality have thought about homosexuality and a lot of men go from there to have a thought wether a homosexual fantasy, thought or act appeals to them or not. A certain amount of those people would not have spend a thought in earnest on it otherwise (not talking about homophobic males here) as it is clear to them there's no appeal. Does this matter in regards to wether they are on the homosexual spectrum (like they have thought about it thus they're at least 1% on it)? No, in a lot of cases.

 

Not pure, from a right wing religious point of view. They teach that God punishes for impure thoughts.

You seem to be arguing that the spectrum doesn't matter, not that it doesn't exist.

 

Well, what I was noticing is that you made the assertion that Gorilla doesn't get the full idea of the spectrum because he acknowledged there are also people that fit in the 0% (or 100%). Which makes me think that someone who says and believes that is not the case seems not to acknowledge such people's existence, and so likely is the one who doesn't see the full spectrum themselves.

Nobody is arguing the spectrum has no use at all because there are also people that are on a far end of the spectrum, e.g. 0%. Instead, you seem to imply that just because there is this spectrum we all are at least on the 1% or more, and that someone who doesn't agree with that, in this case VG, must not get the idea of the spectrum.

edit: spelling

 

I'm excited for a time when we stop labeling ourselves, the whole concept of sexuality is sort of unnecessary. Virginity, sexuality, all constructs. They might have once served a purpose, but I think the purpose is showing signs of fizzling out.

 

I don't think we'll ever get all the way there, but the situation will improve quite a bit more. There will always be a place for the concept of the gay bar, where people can go and expect to find people with similar lifestyles and interests. Also, there will always be some individuals who love and celebrate their labels, and that's fine if that's what they want to do.