Show Posts
1
Der Eigene (Blog + Video) / 0051: So we can all just turn straight by force of will?
« on: September 20, 2014, 11:53:16 AM »http://www.justusboys.com/forum/threads/427383-Are-ONLY-women-fluid-with-their-sexuality?p=9646056&viewfull=1#post9646056
Quote
I wrote a free book specifically on the sexual fluidity of males. In ancient Greece and Rome (but elsewhere too), men had sex with other men. Not 3% of men, not 5%, but a much larger number. They weren't merely tolerant of the few people who were same-sex oriented but the culture itself was oriented in that manner. No polls are available, but we know that of the first twenty Roman emperors, eighteen (or 90%) were reported to have had sex with other men. Other cultures around the world reported similar experiences between men. So what happened that 95% of men would say they're exclusively heterosexual now? Christianity. Same-sex was forbidden starting in the 300's and almost everyone is raised to feel that same-sex sex is gross or for just effeminate men.
Think of how uncomfortable most men are wearing speedos at least here in America. Well, in Europe when I was growing up, everyone was wearing them so no big deal. Sexuality is just like speedos: It's just social pressure and expectations. Innate sexual orientation, my ass.
Quote
Right, so we can all just turn straight by force of will?
Quote
Not necessarily.
My book is mostly about how most straight men cannot have been born straight. This has to be the case if we see that in the ancient world, most men it would appear had no(ne of our*) qualms about same-sex sex. Genes/hormones/whatever do not change in a few centuries. Culture can and did. That culture "makes" people straight does not mean that straight men can by force of will change their sexual habits. It does mean that for "straight" men who are already open-minded or curious, informing them that they're not really born straight could perhaps lead to a greater incidence same-sex sex.
Where does that leave the gays or homosexuality? Well, the problem is that there is no one thing called homosexuality. If you just browse the table of contents of Homosexualities by Stephen O. Murray, you'll see that there have been multiple types of homosexualities, plural. In some cultures, you had relationships between men of same rank or males of a different, both masculine though. In North America, you had berdaches who were feminine men used like women; the top in this relationship wasn't considered different from other males. Under the modern nomenclature, all of these people would be considered "homosexual" now. So... can some of these people change? Well, maybe.
I've never understood how some gay men can have sex with dozens or hundreds of men of varying quality, yet if a vagina is attached, "Eww, no thanks." Really, that's the deal breaker? A lot of gay men are effeminate and end up with other effeminate gay men... but if there's a vagina attached, "Eww, no thanks." Those in stable relationships (gay and straight): would you ditch your partner if they magically sprouted genitalia contrary to their biological sex all the sudden? So how much of homosexual exclusivity is due to the hetero-majority's bigotry that segregates gays, for example?
*There were sexual taboos in Rome. A freeman being penetrated was looked down upon, although no doubt many did it.
