25715 réponses à ce sujet

[Unbannable]

bas_kon wrote...

@Unbannable:

I think either you're a teen yet or you watch too much porn stuff for your own sake man, otherwise I can't understand why you would think adult women would act like that irl, they have some dignity, you know.

 
I already cited a case of Lisa Nowak, a high profile female astronaut "acting like that," so apparently it can happen in real life.

Plus, women enjoy seduction, they usually pretend not to like you even if they do, so you get more interested in getting to know her, instead of getting in their pants.

Well if you're going to accuse me of being a teen, then I'm going to accuse you of being a senior citizen.  Women in my age group (25 to 30) aren't shy about making the first move.

The kind of thinking that men should always be the pursuers and do all the chasing is very outdated. 

Also, if you were just as atractive as you claim to be, you would know that more men than women would show interest in you openly, even more if you are the alpha type..

I don't know why you would think this..  A gay or bisexual man that flirts openly with another man that he doesn't know for sure is gay, is playing with fire.  Gay men are typically very reluctant to do this, because doing so can easily result in violence (or death in some cases), as many heterosexual men become highly offended if another man hits on them.

So it's still not realistic, not enough men interested in you (zero) and too much women (everyone). Looks like a straight teen fantasy to me.

Actually, I've had gay men hit on me before plenty of times....though not usually openly.  Usually it's appreciative glances, though I did have this one guy that flirted with me aggressively despite knowing that I was straight.

Gay men like him are not typical though, as they know it's dangerous to do that. 

And the example of the astronaut is just so silly I had to laugh, sounded like comic stuff.

You may laugh, but it happened in real life.

[ElitePinecone]

Unbannable, real-world discussions of whether or not gay people are actually bisexual, due to some theory you have, aren't relevant to this thread. This conversation is going in weird places.

Re: Priestly's comment. I think we'll get confirmation of LIs, but not who they're available for.

But we already know all the LIs, so the point is moot.

[jlb524]

Unbannable wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

If you think about it, it's far more embarrasing for a straight person to admit they've slept with the opposite sex because it's considered 'wrong'.

I think you meant same sex

Yus...I got that backwards.

Unbannable wrote... 
Oh I'm sure you do.  Of course my theory was always that professed homosexuals are actually bisexuals with a strong lean towards the same sex.  Homosexual exclusivity is very rare from what I can tell, which makes sense because all humans are physiologically heterosexual...

Ah, okay...your own unproven theory.

ElitePinecone wrote...

Re: Priestly's comment. I think we'll get confirmation of LIs, but not who they're available for. 

But we already know all the LIs, so the point is moot.

Yeah...that won't help us much.

Modifié par jlb524, 10 janvier 2012 - 12:38 .

[MACharlie1]

jlb524 wrote...

Unbannable wrote... 
Oh I'm sure you do.  Of course my theory was always that professed homosexuals are actually bisexuals with a strong lean towards the same sex.  Homosexual exclusivity is very rare from what I can tell, which makes sense because all humans are physiologically heterosexual...

Ah, okay...your own unproven theory.

Haven't there been studies that sexuality is actually sort of this way? Not in the way Unbannable is describing but for both ****** and heterosexuals; everyone is bisexual but most people do lean to the heterosexual side (in many instances, because of socialization) and homosexuals leaning the other way. So while homosexual exclusivity is very rare, so is heterosexual exclusivity also is. 

Modifié par MACharlie1, 10 janvier 2012 - 12:57 .

[mauro2222]

Unbannable wrote...

Oh I'm sure you do.  Of course my theory was always that professed homosexuals are actually bisexuals with a strong lean towards the same sex.  Homosexual exclusivity is very rare from what I can tell, which makes sense because all humans are physiologically heterosexual...

I agree here.

[MACharlie1]

mauro2222 wrote...

Unbannable wrote...

Oh I'm sure you do.  Of course my theory was always that professed homosexuals are actually bisexuals with a strong lean towards the same sex.  Homosexual exclusivity is very rare from what I can tell, which makes sense because all humans are physiologically heterosexual...

I agree here.

That is only if you are considering if sex is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction...physiologically, it isn't. Both sexes have g-spots and derive pleasure from sexual activity. If you want to talk about men and the purposes of sex, take a guess where his g-spot is. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who will honestly say they only have sex for the purposes of reproduction. 

[Criz]

IsaacShep wrote...
Haha no doubt, if it was up to you, it would've been in ME1 already! :D:D

if I had a time machine perhaps, but I didn't play ME1 until shortly before ME2 was released
the odd thing is, it didn't even occur to me to want to be able to romance Kaidan with mShep until I saw a video of the consol command transgender version and after that one of my Shepard just became the 'madly in love with Kaidan even if it's unrequited' one ...


also, this may be against what many want, but I'm perfectly fine with the s/s relationships being basically the same as the hetero relationships, I don't want this to be a huge issue because it shouldn't be. This is the future, I'd expect people to be less ... *legasp* about two men or two women being together

[Unbannable]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Haven't there been studies that sexuality is actually sort of this way? Not in the way Unbannable is describing but for both ****** and heterosexuals; everyone is bisexual but most people do lean to the heterosexual side (in many instances, because of socialization) and homosexuals leaning the other way. So while homosexual exclusivity is very rare, so is heterosexual exclusivity also is. 

Actually, the studies (and polls) indicate the opposite.  Sexuality is biological in nature, and determined in the womb.  

And no, most people are not bisexual.  If that were true, then bisexuality wouldn't be taboo, and it would be far more common. 

[Blacklash93]

Unbannable wrote...
A genuinely heterosexual person would be repulsed by the thought of sexual contact with a member of the same sex, regardless of how attractive that person is.  I know it repulses me

I'm going to regret getting involved this, but...

No. Reactions like that are learned. The brain does not naturally know what kind of sexual contact to be repulsed by. I know plenty of straight people who are not repulsed by gay intercourse in the slightest. It just doesn't bother them because they know it's outside their realm.

Modifié par Blacklash93, 10 janvier 2012 - 01:48 .

[Finis Valorum]

Criz-Zone wrote...

This is the future, I'd expect people to be less ... *legasp* about two men or two women being together

Don't know if I share your optimism about the future,considering the way things are going lately, best case scenario seems to be one of two steps forwards, one step back.
Still a video game, book or movie can afford to err a little on the side of optimism methinks.

[Ryzaki]

I'm only believing it would be a non issue because of aliens.

It becomes a "us vs them." thing. Even people not normally accepted will become such the second there is another scapegoat (that is far more different and easier to point at).

Shep not getting any flak for the xeno romances is where I'm a bit confused. Radical pro humans should DETEST the Asari. Hot or not every child they create is one child that's using a human parent to create something not human. If Miranda's origins are anything to go by it's possible for s/s parents to have a child based off their DNA. Meanwhile with the Asari a human can become a parent without increasing the human population.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 01:41 .

[MACharlie1]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

Haven't there been studies that sexuality is actually sort of this way? Not in the way Unbannable is describing but for both ****** and heterosexuals; everyone is bisexual but most people do lean to the heterosexual side (in many instances, because of socialization) and homosexuals leaning the other way. So while homosexual exclusivity is very rare, so is heterosexual exclusivity also is. 

Actually, the studies (and polls) indicate the opposite.  Sexuality is biological in nature, and determined in the womb.  

And no, most people are not bisexual.  If that were true, then bisexuality wouldn't be taboo, and it would be far more common. 

That's why it isn't common - because it has become a taboo. Theres a positive correlation between sexual-openess and societal acceceptance. 

[Unbannable]

MACharlie1 wrote...

That is only if you are considering if sex is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction...physiologically, it isn't.

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, although most humans also use it for enjoyment.  Both external sex organs in males and females are conducive to the act of procreation, regardless of whether the man or woman is gay or straight.

For example, a penis is shaped to penetrate a vagina, and a vagina is contoured to accept a penis.  Even having an orgasm has a role in procreation.  It's also physically impossible for two people of the same sex to engage in biological sex.

Both sexes have g-spots and derive pleasure from sexual activity. If you want to talk about men and the purposes of sex, take a guess where his g-spot is. 

You'd have to be insane to argue that the rectum is a sexual organ.  It has no natural lubrication, it rips and tears easily, and it's the body's exit for waste so it's very dirty.

People that engage in anal intercourse on a regular basis can actually do great harm to themselves..

[MACharlie1]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

That is only if you are considering if sex is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction...physiologically, it isn't.

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, although most humans also use it for enjoyment.  Both external sex organs in males and females are conducive to the act of procreation, regardless of whether the man or woman is gay or straight.

For example, a penis is shaped to penetrate a vagina, and a vagina is contoured to accept a penis.  Even having an orgasm has a role in procreation.  It's also physically impossible for two people of the same sex to engage in biological sex.

Both sexes have g-spots and derive pleasure from sexual activity. If you want to talk about men and the purposes of sex, take a guess where his g-spot is. 

You'd have to be insane to argue that the rectum is a sexual organ.  It has no natural lubrication, it rips and tears easily, and it's the body's exit for waste so it's very dirty.

People that engage in anal intercourse on a regular basis can actually do great harm to themselves..

Primary yes but it's not the only purpose. The body knows it needs pleasure. And it's going to get it one way or another.

Not saying the rectum is - but the prostate is. Massaging the prostate stimulates the man and results in orgasm. And the vagina does rip...a woman does have to have kids through that channel. My best friend had a kid and she tore. 

And a penis is also a bodys exit for waste. Just...FYI.

Modifié par MACharlie1, 10 janvier 2012 - 01:47 .

[Unbannable]

Blacklash93 wrote...

No. Reactions like that are learned. The brain does not naturally know what kind of sexual contact to be repulsed by.

I would disagree.  Sexual contact and sexual attraction typically go hand in hand.  If you are having sexual contact with someone you have no attraction to, then your body won't be nearly as responsive (if at all) as if you were having sex with someone you had a strong attraction to.

A woman that has never been raped, would still feel repulsed at the though of being raped despite the sexual contact.

[Blacklash93]

I swear listening to the unbannable is like going through the Family Research Council brochure again.

[Ryzaki]

...Oh boy.

There are people who have orgasmed and felt shamed and betrayed by their body because they felt pleasure while being raped. Let's not say who someone's body should feel when their violating them hmm?

Let's not play the "It's only rape if she didn't orgasm!" card. It makes me want to throw up.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 01:55 .

[Blacklash93]

Unbannable wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

No. Reactions like that are learned. The brain does not naturally know what kind of sexual contact to be repulsed by.

I would disagree.  Sexual contact and sexual attraction typically go hand in hand.  If you are having sexual contact with someone you have no attraction to, then your body won't be nearly as responsive (if at all) as if you were having sex with someone you had a strong attraction to.

A woman that has never been raped, would still feel repulsed at the though of being raped despite the sexual contact.

Unresponsive does not equal repulsion.

And about rape, I also find the thought of being assualted to please some sickos fantasies repulsive.

[Unbannable]

MACharlie1 wrote...

That's why it isn't common - because it has become a taboo. Theres a positive correlation between sexual-openess and societal acceceptance. 

Why would it be taboo in the first place then?  Is heterosexuality taboo anywhere in the World?  No, of course not, because it's accepted as normal behaviour.

If all people were bisexual as you claim, then shouldn't there be more practicing bisexuals, and shouldn't bisexuality be less taboo than it is?

I mean, we're talking about all people here, and not just a few.

[shepskisaac]

Haha it always comes out, the true intentions, motives etc. You should've kept the facade on Unbannable

[Ryzaki]

Blacklash93 wrote...

Unbannable wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

No. Reactions like that are learned. The brain does not naturally know what kind of sexual contact to be repulsed by.

I would disagree.  Sexual contact and sexual attraction typically go hand in hand.  If you are having sexual contact with someone you have no attraction to, then your body won't be nearly as responsive (if at all) as if you were having sex with someone you had a strong attraction to.

A woman that has never been raped, would still feel repulsed at the though of being raped despite the sexual contact.

Unresponsive does not equal repulsion.

And about rape, I also find the thought of being assualted to please some sickos fantasies repulsive.

Yeah that has nothing to do with women and everything to do with some sicko using you as he/she pleases.

[Unbannable]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Not saying the rectum is - but the prostate is. Massaging the prostate stimulates the man and results in orgasm. And the vagina does rip...a woman does have to have kids through that channel. My best friend had a kid and she tore.

As far as I know, the only way to get to the prostate is through the rectum.  Also, while a vagina can tear, it's obvious that it was designed as a birthing canal, and so it has enormous capability to stretch..

And a penis is also a bodys exit for waste. Just...FYI.

Urine isn't inherently dirty (people have used it for healing purposes after all), and vaginas clean themselves on a regular basis via natural functions. 

[MACharlie1]

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

That's why it isn't common - because it has become a taboo. Theres a positive correlation between sexual-openess and societal acceceptance. 

Why would it be taboo in the first place then?  Is heterosexuality taboo anywhere in the World?  No, of course not, because it's accepted as normal behaviour.

If all people were bisexual as you claim, then shouldn't there be more practicing bisexuals, and shouldn't bisexuality be less taboo than it is?

I mean, we're talking about all people here, and not just a few.

I can't answer why it would be in the first place - I don't have a time machine. Heterosexuality can't every be seen as a taboo because...well...the species has to procreate. Any society understands that. And then you have some religions which felt that sex should only be to make babies hence any sex between members of the same sex was automatically "sinful". 

As for your second claim - YES - there should be more bisexuals. There should be more. And we know there are more who are married to women, denying attraction. And bisexuals can easily skert by since they are also attracted to woman. Nobody questions a married man (to a woman) sexuality. And according to the Kinsey scale ( I think that's what it's called ) bisexuality is not black and white. Some men are really attracted to woman and some men, some equally, some more to men but still would go for women.  

[Ryzaki]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Unbannable wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

That is only if you are considering if sex is exclusively for the purposes of reproduction...physiologically, it isn't.

The primary purpose of sex is reproduction, although most humans also use it for enjoyment.  Both external sex organs in males and females are conducive to the act of procreation, regardless of whether the man or woman is gay or straight.

For example, a penis is shaped to penetrate a vagina, and a vagina is contoured to accept a penis.  Even having an orgasm has a role in procreation.  It's also physically impossible for two people of the same sex to engage in biological sex.

Both sexes have g-spots and derive pleasure from sexual activity. If you want to talk about men and the purposes of sex, take a guess where his g-spot is. 

You'd have to be insane to argue that the rectum is a sexual organ.  It has no natural lubrication, it rips and tears easily, and it's the body's exit for waste so it's very dirty.

People that engage in anal intercourse on a regular basis can actually do great harm to themselves..

Primary yes but it's not the only purpose. The body knows it needs pleasure. And it's going to get it one way or another.

Not saying the rectum is - but the prostate is. Massaging the prostate stimulates the man and results in orgasm. And the vagina does rip...a woman does have to have kids through that channel. My best friend had a kid and she tore. 

And a penis is also a bodys exit for waste. Just...FYI.

And that is why no matter how many people try to ban it people will always masturbate. :innocent:

...that was probably TMI

As for the Vagina my cousin used to tell me to be careful who I sleep with because if the man isn't careful he can tear you. It doesn't take childbirth.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:06 .

[Sundance31us]

Ryzaki wrote...
And that is why no matter how many people try to ban it people will always masturbate. :innocent:

...that was probably TMI

Do you realize that you've just explained why there is a towel shortage on the Normandy?