25715 réponses à ce sujet

[Blacklash93]

I'm not sure how you could call someone completely in tune with a certain sexuality. There are very, very, very few black and whites in human psychology.

[FoxHound109]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I'm not sure how you could call someone completely in tune with a certain sexuality. There are very, very, very few black and whites in human psychology.

This is pretty much how I feel. To me, the natural state of things is bisexuality, and - I'll say it again - I would go as far to say that the natural state of things is sexual opportunism. That goes for all species in the plannet that are not asexual. 

Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 02:39 .

[FoxHound109]

Ah, I missed this post...

cgrimm54 wrote...

The fact that the bisexuality issue is hotly contested among the medical and psychological community means that it's not really something that can be arbitrarily determined. It depends on too many factors, including societal pressures, personal views, religion, and intentional withholding of information. I personally consider myself bisexual, but with a heavy slant towards women. Someone else in a similar situation might consider themselves completely heterosexual. The whole 'unmeasurable' factor being key in this debate.

Eloquently put! <3

[Sundance31us]

Of course, we're talking about a video game where the sexual preference of the PC does not have to match that of the player and the only reason (I can see) for having sexual content present in the first place is to entertain the player.

[Ryzaki]

Finis Valorum wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

A. I want to be closer to you (sometimes this entails sex).

B. Make up sex.

What else? 

You forgot an important one, workout sex.

Where does hate sex fit in then? Why would anyone want to procreate with someone they hate? Then...gay/lesbian hate sex? 

I'M CONFUSED!

[Hedera]

Sundance31us wrote...

Of course, we're talking about a video game where the sexual preference of the PC does not have to match that of the player and the only reason (I can see) for having sexual content present in the first place is to entertain the player.

What do games exist for, if not to entertain the player?  The fact that BioWare has S/S romances at all, let alone well-thought out and lengthy ones, puts them ahead of the rest of the gaming community.  From what I've seen, ME3 looks to improve this further, and I'm very happy to see that.  Also, even though the PC doesn't have to match the player at all, they have made a habit of (forgive me for using this word) catering to both straight and gay gamers, so I see no reason to assume they won't continue the trend.

[Abispa]

Listen, arguing about sexual positions in a game where sex exists as a BLANK SCREEN is really a waste of time. And arguing STDs in ME3 sex is really stupid since the whole Talimance consummation blows that out of the water as a concern for ME3 lovers.

[bleetman]

...

What on earth have you people been discussing.

[Chun Hei]

They have been talking about STDs?

[Abispa]

Chun Hei wrote...

They have been talking about STDs?

Preemptive strike on my part. This thread has once again become a debated on the existence homosexuality and bisexuality and sexual norms.

However, the Talimance gives us plenty of area to cover as far as the ME series providing LI as a result of fan service, even though it violates established game lore and not just player head canons. I wouldn't have wanted it in MY game, but happy Talimancers don't inconvience me at all since I don't romance her.

Modifié par Abispa, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:13 .

[Chun Hei]

bleetman wrote...

...

What on earth have you people been discussing.

Cute cartoon pony avatars.

[Chun Hei]

Nevermind.

Modifié par Chun Hei, 10 janvier 2012 - 03:13 .

[silentassassin264]

Abispa wrote...

Chun Hei wrote...

They have been talking about STDs?

Preemptive strike on my part. This thread has once again become a debated on the existence homosexuality and bisexuality and sexual norms.

However, the Talimance gives us plenty of area to cover as far as the ME series providing LI as a result of fan service, even though it violates established game lore and not just player head canons. I wouldn't have wanted it in MY game, but happy Talimancers don't inconvience me at all since I don't romance her.

Actually a Talimance does not break the lore largely because whoever wrote the science behind it went full special.  The fact that Tali (and Quarians in general) has allergic reactions to random outside stimuli even if they are not quarian specific disease causing antigens means that the Quarians have a very strong, in fact hypersensistive immune system.  All quarians would have to do is take immunosuppressors and they could walk around suitless.  As long as Shepard doesn't have a Quarian STD, all Tali would have to do is take an immunosuppressor and they could boink all night long with no repercussions.  The [lovable] goofball got sick because she used immuno boosters when she has a hypersensitive immune system.  Of course it isn't her fault because as I said, the writers at BIoware had absolutely no clue what they were talking about when they wrote the Quarians.

And yeah for bisexuals and stuff.

[shinyblacklatexkitty]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

According to the leak she does have a
tattoo that represents Shepard if you romanced her. Also Shepard gets
the Jack equivalent of an affectionate nickname.

..........................................
*swears* *cries* seriosuly Jack is so like me my favourite damn
character, I get told by people I remind them of her lol (in a good way
cos I stand up to people that do bad crap youtube.com/watch?v=H_zgl8ZB_84#t=1m30s )

In ME3 they are going to uncensor themselves and have same sex
relationships, right, but will they uncensor themselves on characters
they previously left it out of? It's pretty obvious they hid all the
same sex stuff in Mass Effect 2 for fear of the fox news puritans RE
Mass Effect 1, I hope they uncensor her cos it's damn obvious she is too
cool to be straight ,it seemed really forced the way she just suddenly
didn't want to talk to you anymore at all, not about anything, when you
are friends with her

Modifié par shinyblacklatexkitty, 10 janvier 2012 - 05:19 .

[NeiA]

Personally I like Tali'Zorah.....A bi-Tali would be cool to see...Well...Actually I'd like to see all squad members romance...And I know they can't do that...but for me...in order...Liara, Tali, Thane, Miranda, Joker, Jack, Garrus, Kasumi, Mordin, and...Joker...oops said him already...LOL. Yeah I really would like to see Joker as a romance...have since ME 1

[mauro2222]

MACharlie1 wrote...

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. 

Ok... yeah I didn't read the last part .

Why are we so complicated? <_<

[Unbannable]

Chris Readman wrote...

That's debateable isn't it? That the primary purpose for sex is reproduction. For all you know, reproduction might be a side effect you get out of sex, while the primary purpose is for pleasure or some other undiscovered reason. I don't know, I don't see why people are making such a big deal out of reproduction, sure it is so that animals can pass on their genetic material and ensure that they survive another generation, but then again, what is the point of that exactly? Think of it this way, we are able to derive pleasure more so than we are able to achieve reproduction, considering that we are able to achieve pleasure in many many ways that are "non-productive".

If the primary purpose of sex was pleasure alone, we would be able to have an orgasm without ejaculation; since having an orgasm is the most pleasurable aspect of sex.  As such, a man can't have an orgasm without ejaculation unless he trains himself to, and even then he has to will his body to do something it doesn't necessarily want to do.

[Unbannable]

cgrimm54 wrote...

The fact that the bisexuality issue is hotly contested among the medical and psychological community means that it's not really something that can be arbitrarily determined. It depends on too many factors, including societal pressures, personal views, religion, and intentional withholding of information. I personally consider myself bisexual, but with a heavy slant towards women. Someone else in a similar situation might consider themselves completely heterosexual. The whole 'unmeasurable' factor being key in this debate.

Most bisexuals tend to favor one sex over the other, typically the opposite sex from what I've seen and read.

I don't think it's hotly contested though.  Bisexuality is pretty cut and dry.  If you find both sexes attractive and sleep with both men and women, then you are bisexual.

The vast majority of the human race doesn't fit that criteria on the other hand, and polling data suggests otherwise.

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

And we don't? Really? You just admited three posts ago that sex has immense impact and purpose in social species that go far beyond reproduction. So I'm not sure where you are getting at here. I would even argue that being a highly social species, the bonobos are about as "analogous to our discussion" as anything else in nature can get.

Bonobos are far more sexual than human beings however, both in terms of sexual frequency and how they use sex as a tool in their Society.

Also, there are no homosexual bonobos as far as I know, unlike humans, as all bonobos are bisexual.. 

Anyway, your argument was that being phyisiologically built to procreate means that humans are automatically heterosexual in majority, that bisexuality is not the norm, and that homosexuals are not truly exclusive homosexuals because it is impossible to be due to your first assumption.

Actually, I said that most, not all homosexuals were truly bisexuals that just lean more towards the same sex.  There are homosexuals that have never had sexual contact of any kind with the opposite sex.  They are very rare however, almost as rare as true bisexuals (people with no preference for one sex over the other) and asexuals, people that have no desire to have sex at all.

From research and polls that I've read, I recall that exclusive homosexuals (as in those that have never had sexual contact with members of the opposite sex) account for about 1% (or less) of the human population.

Also, homosexuality appears to be more frequent in men than in women, which further suggests a biological cause to me.

But if you think I am incorrect here, I would like for you to list for me every single way possible in which human beings use sex, seeing as how in order to come to the conclusion that all humans are automatically heterosexual on some level because of design would require you to know all of these possible variables.

Well I shouldn't (and wouldn't) have to do such a thing to prove my point I would think.  One need only look at our sexual organs to see that I am right, as our sexual organs are designed in such a way as to be conducive to coitus.

Gay men and straight men share the exact same physical makeup (at least outwardly), although the former sleeps with men and the latter with women. 

For the record, the bonobos are our closest living relatives. We share more genetic makeup with them than any other living species on the planet.

Bonobos migh be our closest living relatives, but they are still very different from humans in a number of key areas.

Modifié par Unbannable, 10 janvier 2012 - 10:52 .

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

If the primary purpose of sex was pleasure alone, we would be able to have an orgasm without ejaculation; since having an orgasm is the most pleasurable aspect of sex.  As such, a man can't have an orgasm without ejaculation unless he trains himself to, and even then he has to will his body to do something it doesn't necessarily want to do.

Untrue. It is possible for a prepubesant male to have an orgasm without ejaculation. You can read up on in medical journals if you like. It is known as a "dry orgasm", which has different meanings depending on the age of the male in question. In fact, without going too far into detail, I can vouch for this personally. My male friends and I discovered masturbation at the age of around eight or nine (although we didn't know what it was called or what it was for; we just did it "because it felt good."). It was perfectly possible to have an orgasm without ejaculating for us (for the obvious reasons that we hadn't yet hit puberty).

You seem to run on a lot of assumptions in your theories.

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

Most bisexuals tend to favor one sex over the other, typically the opposite sex from what I've seen and read.

This is an assumption, not a fact.

I don't think it's hotly contested though.  Bisexuality is pretty cut and dry.  If you find both sexes attractive and sleep with both men and women, then you are bisexual.

No, it is not. This is the exact problem. You assume that it is cut and dry, but with sexuality, it never is. There are men who have sex with other men who do not identify as either ****** or bisexual. That was the original point being made: it is not cut and dry because of social attitudes, personal choices and perceptions, cultural differences, taboos, etc. 

The vast majority of the human race doesn't fit that criteria on the other hand, and polling data suggests otherwise.

Define "polling data" and provide links, please. I see you repeatedly quote polling data and I would like to see it. Not trying to be rude, but if you're going to have a theory and are willing to support it, then I think the least you can do for the sake of your points is to provide us with a link to a peer reviewed study where your statements are backed up. "Polling data," in the general sense (i.e. NOT in a scientific setting) is highly unrealiable. I'm hoping you're talking about scientific research here instead.

I will reply to the rest of your posts later. On my way to school. 

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

Bonobos are far more sexual than human beings however...

Debatable. They are more expressive of their sexuality, but not automatically more sexual. Cultural attitudes we have dictate a lot about sex in societies, especially those that were founded on the ideals of Abrahamic religions. You are making an assumption here.

...both in terms of sexual frequency and how they use sex as a tool in their Society.

You have admited that sex permeates everything in human culture and society. Now you are saying that the difference between bonobos and humans is that bonobos uses sex as a tool in their society and we don't. Your arguments are incompatible. We most certainly use sex as a tool in our society: entire political systems are built around sex. America is currently engaged in a culture/political war over sex: abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc. All of these things will shape the future of this nation as we continue to debate and argue over them. On a personal level, sex is used by us in much the same way as bonobos: to build bonds, reduce conflict, etc.

Also, there are no homosexual bonobos as far as I know, unlike humans, as all bonobos are bisexual.

And your point being? I was arguing for the case of bisexuality being standard. I'm not sure how this an argument against it at all. On the contrary: you are accepting the idea that a species "built" a certain way can in fact defy the way it is made for social purposes.

Actually, I said that most, not all homosexuals were truly bisexuals that just lean more towards the same sex.  There are homosexuals that have never had sexual contact of any kind with the opposite sex.  They are very rare however, almost as rare as true bisexuals (people with no preference for one sex over the other) and asexuals, people that have no desire to have sex at all.

So your definition of a pure homosexual has to deal with physical contact and the act itself? Again, this is why your grasp of "cut and dry" is off, no offense. Having sexual intercourse doesn't necessarily equate to sexuality. There are plenty of men who have only had sex with women because of social pressures to conform, fear of rejection for being homosexual, etc. 

From research and polls that I've read...

Links, please.

I recall that exclusive homosexuals (as in those that have never had sexual contact with members of the opposite sex) account for about 1% (or less) of the human population.

Again, you do not seem to understand that polls and even research isn't exactly accurate when it comes to this subject. Here, I will provide you with a good example:

Most men in the Middle East do not identify as homosexual or bisexual, however, many men in the Middle East have been involved in homosexual acts. Specificially speaking, this is actually something that is more common than people in the world are aware of. There is a social attitude, however, that homosexuality in most of these Middle Eastern cultures encompasses ONLY being a receiving partner and not a giving partner. There are many men who engage in homosexual acts but therefore do not consider themselves anything other than heterosexual as they do no engage in being the receiving or passive partner. This alone is enough to throw off "polls" and "research." 

It's beyond complex. You are simplfying it far too much.

Also, homosexuality appears to be more frequent in men than in women, which further suggests a biological cause to me.

Nobody was arguing against homosexuality being biological. Trust me.

Well I shouldn't (and wouldn't) have to do such a thing to prove my point I would think.  One need only look at our sexual organs to see that I am right, as our sexual organs are designed in such a way as to be conducive to coitus.

You should have to know these things to prove your point. You made the theory and thus the burden of proof falls on you, and unless you extensively and expertly can explain every function of human sexuality to the last detail, it is hard for you to add any kind of concrete weight to your argument. Specifically, your inability to grasp the complexity of human sexuality in your past statements is not a good form of support.

Bonobos migh be our closest living relatives, but they are still very different from humans in a number of key areas.

Most certainly. But I picked a species that was as close as possible, for the sake of the argument. Furthermore, we are unaware of what exactly it is that their genetic differneces do to separate us from them. For all we know, our sexuality may be biologically very similar. 

Modifié par FoxHound109, 10 janvier 2012 - 11:20 .

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Untrue. It is possible for a prepubesant male to have an orgasm without ejaculation. You can read up on in medical journals if you like. It is known as a "dry orgasm", which has different meanings depending on the age of the male in question. In fact, without going too far into detail, I can vouch for this personally. My male friends and I discovered masturbation at the age of around eight or nine (although we didn't know what it was called or what it was for; we just did it "because it felt good."). It was perfectly possible to have an orgasm without ejaculating for us (for the obvious reasons that we hadn't yet hit puberty).

You seem to run on a lot of assumptions in your theories.

I never said it wasn't possible.  Prepubescence aside (not even sure that counts since prepubescent males aren't even fully developed), if you read my post, I said that men can train themselves to orgasm without ejaculation.  In fact, I've done that myself a number of times, even during sex so I know it's possible..

At any rate, ejaculation almost always accompanies orgasm in sexually developed men, whether gay or straight unless they consciously try to stop it.

[FoxHound109]

Unbannable wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

Untrue. It is possible for a prepubesant male to have an orgasm without ejaculation. You can read up on in medical journals if you like. It is known as a "dry orgasm", which has different meanings depending on the age of the male in question. In fact, without going too far into detail, I can vouch for this personally. My male friends and I discovered masturbation at the age of around eight or nine (although we didn't know what it was called or what it was for; we just did it "because it felt good."). It was perfectly possible to have an orgasm without ejaculating for us (for the obvious reasons that we hadn't yet hit puberty).

You seem to run on a lot of assumptions in your theories.

I never said it wasn't possible.  Prepubescence aside (not even sure that counts since prepubescent males aren't even fully developed), if you read my post, I said that men can train themselves to orgasm without ejaculation.  In fact, I've done that myself a number of times, even during sex so I know it's possible..

At any rate, ejaculation almost always accompanies orgasm in sexually developed men, whether gay or straight unless they consciously try to stop it.

It most certainly counts, and it's actually a perfect counter-argument to your comment. You are saying that sex cannot be purely for plesure because an orgasm (the pleasure portion) is inveriably tied to ejactulation (the reproductive portion). I'm going as far as to point out that the orgasm can and does in fact preceed ejaculation. The orgasm alone, in and of itself, can exist before the ejaculation, but the ejaculation can't exist without the orgasm. The orgasm can exist before sexual maturity. That should tell you something.

[Unbannable]

FoxHound109 wrote...

This is an assumption, not a fact.

Hmm is it?  As a gay man, you must know there is a powerful stigma attached to dating bisexuals in the gay community.  I wonder why?

No, it is not. This is the exact problem. You assume that it is cut and dry, but with sexuality, it never is. There are men who have sex with other men who do not identify as either ****** or bisexual. That was the original point being made: it is not cut and dry because of social attitudes, personal choices and perceptions, cultural differences, taboos, etc.

What they identify as makes no difference at all.  As I've said before, sexual behaviour and sexual orientation are not always the same.  A man can call himself heterosexual till he is blue in the face, but if he has had ongoing sexual contact with other men, he isn't truly heterosexual now is he?

The point is, what people call themselves and what people actually are don't necessarily line up.

Define "polling data" and provide links, please. I see you repeatedly quote polling data and I would like to see it. Not trying to be rude, but if you're going to have a theory and are willing to support it, then I think the least you can do for the sake of your points is to provide us with a link to a peer reviewed study where your statements are backed up. "Polling data," in the general sense (i.e. NOT in a scientific setting) is highly unrealiable. I'm hoping you're talking about scientific research here instead.

I will reply to the rest of your posts later. On my way to school. 

There are a number of good polls concerning human sexuality.  Here's a link, but before you go decrying it because it's from Wikipedia, notice that the page has a lot of references to actual Scientific polls[/url].

The 4% figure seems to be highly repeatable, even across nations.