Gay or Not

[moe666]

I thought SB had banned the nut who keeps asking gay or not.

[Road Runner]

  I think you mean Brokelanders.  

I guess he finally decided he was     and has gone off to a more suitable forum.    

RR.

[rxpharm]

Brocklanders is still around, he's probably just busy at work - he was last active on the Forum Oct. 23.

moe666 may be thinking of the guy who was looking for a gay lb girlfriend who would love a gay guy like him!

[alan1chef]

Well, Brokelanders or ziggystardust started this discussion apologizing for any reference to Hitler's final solution! Then he went on to claim that because we associated with LB's, whom he assumed were gay already, that we all were partially gay! I would say that after looking at all the comments, that we have resoundlingly bashed his theory into oblivion. We are not gay and neither are the LB's we love!

[Guest]

I guess you have problems reading, because I started the post, and you obviously didn't read it.

I never said we are gay, I said there is a book (which I did not write) describing categories of inclusion in different social or psychological phenomena; which, we could perhaps also appy to ourselves and Ladyboys. You can believe that theory or not, up to you. I posted it because it's interesting idea.

If you think you are 0% gay (whatever that means), but you look at pictures of cocks, suck them, jerk off to them, and read forums on them, you are slightly dillusional.

While I have zero attraction to men, even I have to admit the facts, that admiring cocks must mean I am some place on Kinsey's continuum between homosexual and heterosexual.

BTW, I rarely post now due to a repulsion of sadomasochism. I don't see the point in providing some ideas or comments, and then read people like yourseful call me a 'nut' or insult my family or girlfriend.

As you are not gay, you can tell all your family and coworkers your obsession with Ladyboys then with full confidence in this conviction.

[stogie bear]

The more I read about studies that try to pigeonhole peoples sexuality the more I'm inclined to think that it simply can't be done!

This so called 'continuum' started off being a reasonably practical way for us to deal with ourselves and others when it came to attatching (or detatching) labels. Now it's just a confusing farce.

If you feel the need to fall into a 'category' or pin a label on other people then you are clearly uncomfortable with yourself and the world around you.

A better continuum would be the extremes of enjoying sex...

Leave the 'how' and 'who with' to the idiot academics who can barely use a knife and fork let alone understand human nature.

[Guest]

I don't really have an opinion on whether it's a good idea or not. It's just an idea of how to explain things.

My view is that for 'us', i.e., those of us who enjoy other genders and types of sexuality, there is usually not a need to define a word or 'scale'. However, for those who are strictly heterosexual, or even violently so, there is a need to explain things in a way that can make understand this is not unnatural or cause for concern. No explanation doesn't really work. So perhaps the continuum and other terms, and Freudian theories, are really just ways to explain to people who cannot comprehend people being different from them. In that sense, it has value.

[Monkey]

Okay, guys it's time to put this one finally to rest.

Find out how gay you really are:

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsi...gayometer.html

83% for me apparently

[andre459]

   

Some other BM have already done this test and looks like you've scored the highest Monkey.
https://theladyboyforums.com/cgi-bin....and+gay

[alan1chef]

I read your post. I don't agree with the notion of stereotyping period. I don't believe in the idea that you can partially stereotype people. Not just gays, but any and all stereotyping. We are all individuals, each with unique attributes. Any attempt to explain our behavior by putting a label on it I find dehumanizing. Take a moment and think about all the stereotypes that exist in society today. Are we all really that narrow-minded? I think not.

[andre459]

I think your talking about the negative prejudice that society places on groups based on lack of education and religious brain washing.

I still believe that you can make assumptions about groups of people based on socioeconomic reasons. This doesn't mean you are passing judgement on them just that statistically they are more likely to behave in a certain way. Of course it will never apply to everyone. It would be nice if we were all individuals and able to make our own decisions but unfortunately the environment we are brought up in effects the ideas, education, religious brainwashing, opportunities etc that we are exposed to. It usually takes an exceptional person to break these barriers.

It's the old nature vs nurture debate. Was Hitler a monster no matter where he was born. Sorry i'm getting a bit   .

What I was getting at was that labels, categorization, stereotypes etc have their place. As TC said

I agree totally. Any type of Humanistic or Scientific study needs labels otherwise it would impossible to have a conversation or write about anything Academic period,
whether its Dinosuars, different species of Butterflies, Class, Race or Gender....

I know that I'm sexual no matter what prefix goes in front.

[stogie bear]

So perhaps the continuum and other terms, and Freudian theories, are really just ways to explain to people who cannot comprehend people being different from them. In that sense, it has value.

Good point. I'll go along with that.

[Tomcat]

(stogie bear @ Nov. 04 2007,10:16) academics who can barely use a knife and fork let alone understand human nature.

Craig Venter , who sequenced DNA, has now built the first synthetic life which will i guess will shock quite a few who think they know what life is. These guys are no idiots....Venter is a billionaire

Watson, who also has a book out now, claims that personality comes mainly from DNA . And this is the guy that discoverd it .Mind you Watson has just been thrown of the UK lecture circuit for stating that black people are genetically stupid. Watson also rants on about Gays in the new book ""avoid boring People"

Ill have to buy it and report back , it will be interesting to see his angle on the Gay thing.....

[Guest]

I recommend highly Boswel's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality". It is a long read, but factually hard to dispute. The quick summary is that oppression of minorities and in particular homosexuality, is tightly coupled with religion and urbanization or conversely, ruralization.

Basically, rural societies are intolerant of minorities, and especially homosexuality, and vice versa. Likewise, all religions are intolerant. So based on that, you can see the ebbs and flows of tolerance (Roman Empire) and intolerance (rural Middle Ages), and back again to modern religious fever and intolerance.

[ As for alan1chef, I re-read your post a 3rd time above, and it's very evident you didn't really read any posts here. Please re-read. In no place have I said LBs are gay, nor myself -- never have and never will. ]

[alan1chef]

I do not agree with the premise of categorization, period. I believe that categorization is discrimination. Categorizaton is about labeling us as some percentage of gay, which is why everyone here is answering the question, "gay or not". I say that the very question is irrelevant. It is only those groups in society that believe in discrimination who believe in categorization. (Ziggy, my answer in post 64 was only addressing the question raised in the few posts that preceded that one, starting with post 61)