Why women are leaving men for other women

[genintoronto]

And with all due respect Rockslinger, I seem to remember you mentioning that no one in your circle of friends/family is gay (as far as you know). Maybe you are not the best person to judge how "good" gays have it in our society, since you are not gay yourself, and don't seem to have anyone close to you to learn from her/his experience?

And why would I ever say that I'm not in favor of gay marriage? Of course I am, and I'm not hiding about it. But I'm not sure how my belief in equality of all before the law has anything to do with this.

 

[Spanglerdoo]

i went through this phase but dayum its hard to not want a guy

 

[Cycleguy007]

I don't see what all the fuss is about...

Seriously... The female form is by far more attractive than the male form. I most certainly can relate to the fact that many women find other woman attractive. Then of course women also "get" women on an emotional level as well.

If a woman wants to "get" with another woman... I say go for it!

(Similarly, the same goes for men as well... I have several male friends who are homosexual, and I don't feel "threatened" by them in the least... it just isn't something that appeals to me personally...)

 

[Insidious Von]

Rockslinger is consistent

There is a theory (probably flawed) that a ballpark attracts 50MM tourists every year and they spend $800MM in the local economy. Just like that opera house they built in Toronto with public money. I don't know anybody who goes there (guess I don''t hang out with a cultured crowd).

Not knowing any gays or opera fans, he must lead a very closeted life.

As for the article it's about as annoying as that grating Rogers commercial "It slides in, it slides out,It slides in, it slides out,It slides in, it slides out" Using as an example a violently tempered, substance abusing, publicity monger as an example doesn't lend her feces...er...thesis validity.

Btw who's Oprah?

 

[Insidious Von]

I'm just gettin started

I wonder which one of these Rockslinger would be attracted to?

This:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deztqFs-gfQ&feature=related

Or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j7TuPV5Mh8&feature=related

 

[genintoronto]

I am down with that. I also have gay friends. They are aware of the nature of my objection to gay marriage, basically that it cuts out polygamous groups. I guess I am way to liberal for some people on this board.

In reading this thread I finally understand what Gen is saying.

I'm curious: what is it exactly that you understand me saying? I say lots of shit.

 

[Aardvark154]

Interesting, but does anyone else notice that after years of - it's hardwired it's not learned and you have to grant us rights, because "it's not a choice" who we are, this article basicly says that at least for women it is a choice.

But in response to your comment: I think that being gay, straight, queer, bisexual, or anything in between is NOT a choice. But for many people, making the choice to be out as gay/queer/bisexual is not an easy choice, and many have chosen and continue to choose to live as 'straight'. So, the choice here is not about your sexuality, but rather about choosing to come out or stay in the closet.

But that is not what the article says Geni. Under the previous paradigm I'd agree with you. But it seems to me that the major point of the article is that for women it is a choice.

Now of course the research may be completely invalid, but that is a matter for other social scientists - to see if this research be validated. That is something we shall have to wait for, since it is certainly beyond the scope of TERB as it now stands.

 

[genintoronto]

But that is not what the article says Geni. Under the previous paradigm I'd agree with you. But it seems to me that the major point of the article is that for women it is a choice.

Now of course the research may be completely invalid, but that is a matter for other social scientists - to see if this research be validated. That is something we shall have to wait for, since it is certainly beyond the scope of TERB as it now stands.

I know that this is not what the article implies. And that's why I called bullshit on the premises and arguments of the article.

I always find it interestingly funny that people are so interested in finding out whether being gay is a choice or hardwired (usually implying that there's something wrong about being gay, but if it's hardwired, then gay people can't be blamed for being gay), but no one seem to care whether being straight is a choice or it's hardwired.

Do any of you who identify as straight made a "choice" to be straight? For you guys, did you go out sucking cocks for a while, just to make sure you didn't prefer it to pussies? Did you "turn straight" after having been gay for a while? Did you "turn straight" because you were hurt by men or because you hate men?

Yes, there are many gay people who start their sexual/romantic life being 'straight', or who have had a few "straight" relationships/fucks before coming out as gay. But this has much more to do with straight being the default sexuality in our society, and with the pressure of being 'normal' (read, straight) and fitting in, than with "choosing" to be gay.

 

[Rockslinger]

Not knowing any gays or opera fans, he must lead a very closeted life.

Shoot, I do live a sheltered life. Never experienced abuse either. I'll have to stop hanging around dancers so much and start going to operas. BTW For what it is worth, I have attended several Gay Pride parades over the years.

 

[james t kirk]

In my experience, sexual orientation is variable.

At one end of the spectrum, you have 100% Gay, at the other, 100% straight. Then you have the majority of people in between the two poles and their position along the chart can easily move towards either extreme.

I have known 3 women who have gone from straight relationships, to gay relationships, and back to straight relationships. (Perhaps, someday they will go back to carpet munching, then back again to wood, who knows, who cares - interesting gossip, that's about it.) I don't think it's that uncommon these days as western society has become more tolerant of lesbians (less so of gay men.)

According to my gay male friend (actually 2 of them) he has stated that he has had many a fling with seemingly very straight men. Anything from sucking their cocks to pounding their asses bare back. According to him, it's not that hard to find a straight but curious guy.

Does that mean that the curious guy is actually gay and in denial. Possibly, but not necessarily. It would be entirely possible that the curious guy is predominantly straight, but is simply intrigued by cock. (Hence the huge popularity of shemales these days.)

To me, the issue of orientation is NOT sexual, but romantic.

It's not whether you are a guy who fucks both men and women, but to which sex do you feel "romantically" attracted to? Do you fall in love with men, or women, or both?

 

[genintoronto]

I mostly agree with everything you wrote there JTK.

And yes, I think that bisexuality or sexual 'fluidity' is more easily accepted in women than men.

There's a joke going around: build one bridge, nobody's calling you an architect. But suck one cock, and you're gay.

And if CL's personals are any indication, there are a LOT of "straight" guys interested in trying cocks, but most would never admit to it for fear of being labelled gay.

Which goes to show that homophobia doesn't affect only gay people (although it does affect them disproportionally I think), but also 'straight' people who are not rigid in their sexuality. Actually, even those who are 100% straight are affected by it.

For instance, there are many straight guys out there who are curious about anal play (receiving), but are worried that being pegged by a woman or having a woman fingering their ass will make them 'gay'. Or it's their girlfriend/wife/lover who think that they might be gay since they expressed an interest in anal play.

But I'm not sure that who you feel "romantically" attracted to is necessarily an indication of someone's sexual orientation. For instance, there is a disproportionate number of bisexual people who have relationships almost exclusively with the opposite sex, and only casual/sexual relationships with member of the same sex. A few have somewhat equal number of 'romantic' relationship with both sex, and a small minority tend to mostly date people of the same sex. I think that this trend has more to do with societal pressures and heteronormativity than anything else.

 

[james t kirk]

Men can VERY easily separate sex and love.

 

[genintoronto]

Men can VERY easily separate sex and love.

After reading way too many threads on "should I date my fav stripper/MPA/SP" or something along those lines, it seems to me that many men have a hard time separating sex from love, even when there's money changing hands to make that distincting very clear.

 

[reboot]

Human sexuality is a lot more complex than a simple yes or no to any singular question. To begin with, there can and sometimes is a difference between who an individual finds sexually arousing on an emotional level and who that same individual finds rationally suitable as a sexual partner. Furthermore, the actual behavior of that individual may be a combination of the consequences of their thoughts and feelings. What is derived is not readily filtered down into a simple straight, gay or bisexual classification.

To suggest that anyone is simply "hardwired" for anything is utter rubbish in my opinion. The most obvious thought experiment would be to consider the implications of "hardwired" gays. In the days before artificial means, such men would not end up reproducing -- ever. Human history is known well enough and long enough to be certain that homosexuality is not a new occurence. If it was any sort of simple "hardwired" genetic mutation, that would have been bred out of the species long ago since by definition two males (or two females) cannot reproduce. I realize it is possible to make a case for a recurring mutation but, honestly, I think this would be an enormous stretch. Homosexuality is way too common and consistently present for the issue of its presence to be that simple.

That necessarily leads to the conclusion that a desire for homosexuality has some social utility while engaging in homosexual behavior represents a choice. Let's assume something is "hardwired" about human sexuality. Let's further assume that homosexuality is part of that mix. It has continued to be part of human sexuality since we've been aware of a history of sexuality so, obviously, homosexuals are able to reproduce themselves. We know that reproduction would not have taken place through homosexual intercourse. Hence, regardless of any claim to preferences, an explicit reproductive choice has been made by those in past generations that would qualify themselves as homosexuals. This sort of reasoning produces the basis for the fundamental objection to any claim about a lack of a choice in being homosexual in practice.

By the way, there is a good reason for so-called heteronormativity in all societies. It is not only the dominant preference, hence the democratic choice, but it is the preference that produces future tax payers efficiently. There is nowhere near the amount of fluidity that some fringe representatives seem to think is possible. Intellectual opposition to normality tends to be based on the same sort of shoddy and ignorant reasoning that once suggested that passing through a brick wall should be possible since -- after all -- the matter that makes up that wall is really mostly empty space. Am I thinking Judith Butthead here?

Anyway, the article presented is just as it is proclaimed to be by several posters already. It is nothing but a bit of sensationalism that has little meaningful content. Lesbian relationships have traditionally been more tolerated. In days gone by for the simple reason that it was not considered possible for two women to have sex and to this day because -- in the end -- they can still be raped so they don't constitute a threat to reproduction. The latter is probably a good part of the reason gays are much less tolerated. Of course, that attitude of tolerance towards lesbians might change as more power is socially invested in women.

Referencing a so-called feminist "philosopher" is enough to tell me that what you've got is wishful lesbians having a flight of fancy about the revolution that will never come. It's enough to beg the question: why is anyone bodying forth their tax dollars to support these fools in the ivory towers?

Noteworthy as well is the fact that women in that 2004 study got comparably aroused, IIRC, by monkeys fucking and all sorts of other imagery. The real question that arose about female sexual arousal had absolutely nothing to do with them being straight or not. I suppose the article presentation of the findings is the same sort of media coverage the Pope got on his visit to Africa where he spoke on a number of important issues and the only thing the idiot box talking heads here managed to spin were his comments on condoms.

 

[Mencken]

I thought what the article said was that, for women, the relationship might lead to sexual attraction - not that the woman was choosing before hand to be queer. That makes sense to me, because from what little I have seen, sexuality for women is more about a response to feelings rather than sex first, feelings later.

I have no doubt that my wife could have sex with a woman under some possible situation. She doesn't see herself as anything but heterosexual...but I know from her reaction to porn that she is mucho turned on by women with women. But I don't think it would happen easily as she has a lot of barriers toward it. Perhaps lucky for me...I don't really know.

I have no problem with gays, and probably could have some sort of pleasurable experience with the right male myself. But I have really no desire to pursue that or go there. Too many women in this world. And far too many that I would love to play with...if that were a possibility. I consider myself hetero as that is where my desires and imagination go. I am not interested in gay porn, gay anything. But at the same time I'm not paranoid about it.

I would love to have a woman do me in the ass. Does that make me gay? I don't think so. I have no desire for that from a male...but if I got to do his wife at the same time I might consider. So I can be bought I guess.

 

[Aardvark154]

After reading way too many threads on "should I date my fav stripper/MPA/SP" or something along those lines, it seems to me that many men have a hard time separating sex from love, even when there's money changing hands to make that distincting very clear.

Perhaps you will recall Stewart and Gouldman of 10cc’s I’m not in Love, that I believe address the matter quite well.

 

[LexingtonJeremy]

Not all men are repressed pillow biters. I for one have never had any desire to touch another dude's cock or have him touch mine. I'm not repulsed by the idea, it just doesn't do anything for me sexually.

I do, however, believe that bisexuality in women is the norm. Hell, I'd probably have a better shot at getting laid by straight women as a woman than I do as a guy.

 

[james t kirk]

After reading way too many threads on "should I date my fav stripper/MPA/SP" or something along those lines, it seems to me that many men have a hard time separating sex from love, even when there's money changing hands to make that distincting very clear.

That's because she's hot and he wants to have the trophy GF (that he would not be capable of scoring in real life otherwise) to have sex with her all time for free.

 

[james t kirk]

Not necessarily, also possible: he is attracted to promiscuous women.

EU

Promiscuous women don't necessarily have to be good looking women.

 

[Alexis_2]

Promiscuous women don't necessarily have to be good looking women.

And in their private lives, SPs are not necessarily promiscuous.