The Purpose of Sex

[JMeganSnow]

OK, fair enough. But it wouldn't be fair to not mention that I think you've done plenty of work already, which is obvious from your posts. You are one smart cookie.

Thanks, but smart by itself ain't enough.

[intellectualammo]

It is wrong to say that anybody chooses who or what they find attractive, because it doesn't happen that way. There is not a point in one's life, young or old, where one says, "I want to be attracted to... this." Sexual attraction is automatic.

This is all so thought provoking to me. Recently (as in this week) I have had an intense attraction, not to real women, but to Real Dolls, Private Island Beauties, Mechadoll dolls, et al. I'm really into high end dolls. I do not own any, low or high end ones, but...

On the other side, things that happen to you throughout your life might change your sexual attraction particulars.

Yes, psychological, psychosociological factors, like personality disorders, social anxiety disorders, disabilities, self-esteem issues, medical/physiological reasons, tragedy, traumatic events, can influence or change them, if and when they develop/occur.

So any way you look at it, sexual attraction is not determined by choice.

What I do, is try to figure out just what it is that attracts me to them (which I do know already now), and am not embarrassed with my attraction to them at all, (or else I wouldn't post this publicly). If I did own one, like PIB doll, Eden, for example, perhaps I will say, like people do when they look at a fancy cake, "Looks too good to eat!" Perhaps mine would remain a virgin, or perhaps not. I'm not exactly primarily interested in them for sexual encounters, but I should mention I'm attracted to them physically more than any real woman on this planet right now. Personally these silocone dolls trump real flesh and blood women for me. I think I just might prefer my women inanimate now. I actually did encounter AHC's (artificial human companions) when I was a Satanist, at least in concept, because Anton LaVey was misanthropic, and I think that they had way more to do with his misanthropy, but me, I'm not like that, I just like to keep to myself. But now I think that I might just have some company... someday.

So, no, if I met the "man of my dreams" for the person I want to become, I'd do my best to avoid him because I don't believe that you can get the reward before you do the work.

The only working I will do, is in working to save money for a doll who will take me as is. I explore all this in my writing and a whole lot of other things, so I actually mentioned more than I wanted to, but... So if people are like "Steve, how can you say they trump real women? What the fuck is wrong with you dude?" I can and will only answer by pointing to my writing, where all the answers lie and are being discovered still.

Edited May 13, 2009 by intellectualammo

[Capitalism Forever]

Sexual attraction is automatic.

It definitely is: ALL emotions are automatic. But they are consequences of the value judgments you have previously made, which you may have made consciously--and even if you made them subconsciously, you can always choose to revise them consciously.

For example, if you hate bureaucracts, it's not because you woke up one morning and thought to yourself, "So should I love or hate bureaucrats? Heads love, tails hate ... let's see ... its tails." But you weren't born hating bureaucrats, either. Rather, you saw bureaucrats, identified (consciously or subconsciously) the effect they had on your life, and judged them accordingly.

It is possible that people or events at a very young age help influence what kind (or kinds) of person(s) one wants, but since nobody (that I have ever heard of) remembers this, it is a rough theory at best.

By "very young age," do you mean teens, or earlier? I ask because most people do remember their teen years quite well. Personally, I even remember that I was completely "asexual" until my teen years. I also remember thinking about what specific attributes I would like in a girl, and I also remember feeling a strong "friendship" towards some boys, and consciously telling myself that I ought not look at that as a potential romantic relationship.

If you do mean teen years, then I agree that that is when most people form their final sexual preferences and don't find it possible to change them later in their lives. But the same can also be said about most people's philosophy and other ideas--and it doesn't mean that all people have to be that way. Rational people will always be willing to revise their ideas and preferences as their experience grows.

[JASKN]

By "very young age," do you mean teens, or earlier?

[...]

If you do mean teen years, then I agree that that is when most people form their final sexual preferences and don't find it possible to change them later in their lives. But the same can also be said about most people's philosophy and other ideas--and it doesn't mean that all people have to be that way. Rational people will always be willing to revise their ideas and preferences as their experience grows.

By very young age I mean infant to say five years old or so, before one is still aware of memory in later years. Sexual attraction isn't exactly like an emotion because everyone has a sexual maturation which changes the makeup of their whole body after a certain age. Wild theory: perhaps sexual maturation "locks in" sexual attraction, who knows. Still, it is not a choice.

You saw boys and thought, "No, I shouldn't," and wound up attracted to girls. I saw boys and thought, "I really shouldn't," and wound up attracted to boys. Where was the choice? And I do not think sexual attraction is like an idea or another regular emotion; people change those all the time, and it usually doesn't take longer than a year or two with some conscious effort in the right ways. The same can't be said of sexual attraction, no matter how hard one tries.

[Capitalism Forever]

I saw boys and thought, "I really shouldn't," and wound up attracted to boys.

You are attracted to boys? Wow, I had no idea. There are so many people who come here and make it a point to mention right in the first sentence of their introduction that they are gay that I've apparently grown to assume that anyone who doesn't, isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you find girls completely unattractive, or is it simply that you prefer boys if given a choice?

I checked your first-ever post on this forum just to make sure I was right about you not mentioning sexual preferences, and found this:

I am beginning to believe that every single desire I possess is alterable.

Have you since changed your mind on this? Or do you hold that sexual desire is an exception?

[Kaiwai Gardiner]

You are attracted to boys? Wow, I had no idea. There are so many people who come here and make it a point to mention right in the first sentence of their introduction that they are gay that I've apparently grown to assume that anyone who doesn't, isn't.

Out of curiosity, do you find girls completely unattractive, or is it simply that you prefer boys if given a choice?

I look at females the same way that I look at an building; it might be impressive, have form and the shape maybe visually pleasing but there is no attraction in the form of wanting to create a relationship and express love through sex.

Lets translate it into straight guy speak; you might know a guy, he has a great physique and you admire it - but that doesn't mean that you want to form a relationship that leads to sex being used as a vehicle for expressing love.

[Capitalism Forever]

I look at females the same way that I look at an building; it might be impressive, have form and the shape maybe visually pleasing but there is no attraction in the form of wanting to create a relationship and express love through sex.

Lets translate it into straight guy speak; you might know a guy, he has a great physique and you admire it - but that doesn't mean that you want to form a relationship that leads to sex being used as a vehicle for expressing love.

I was hoping JASKN would give his answer too, but anyway, let's move on to my next question: What attribute does a man have that a woman doesn't and you find attractive?

Is it that you first felt a very strong admiration for a guy that eventually grew into romantic love and a desire for his body? Or did you first have the desire to have a masculine partner in life, and then sought out someone who met your expectations? Or is it that you get more excited about strong and hard than delicate and soft? Or something else ... ?

[crizon]

I don't think that an adult can change or influence his sexual orientation consciously. I think attraction to another person consists of the mere sexual attraction and secondly on the attraction of his/her character and values. The second part works sort of as an amplifier for the sexual attraction, but it can't fundamentally change it.

IE if you meet a girl that you find physically attractive, this first sexual attraction is nothing you can influence. This can even be measured scientifically by observing subtle changes in body heat and penis-size and produced fluids of the vagina.

Now if you get to know this girl and she turn out to hold value that you consider good and you get along with her very well, this sexual attraction might become even stronger, or on the contrary weaker, when you dislike her character.

The first sexual attraction though, stays the same. IE: If you meet another girl that looks like a girl, that you misliked but were attracted to physically, you will still find here attractive (sexually).

Also I do believe that homosexually and asexually are just 2 particular sexual orientations within a very large pool of others. There are people who are attracted to a lot of "strange" things, like dead people, animals, older people or children. I really don't think that all of those people at any point consciously chose to be attracted to those subjects; on the contrary. I think a lot of them wished they were not the way they are, but are unable to change their sexual orientation.

A while back I read a story about a big hospital in Berlin (charité), who offered psychological help for pedophile men. In the end a lot more men wanted to sign up, than they had personal to deal with it, and I don't think that germans are somehow more likely to be pedophile than other people.

So those men who signed up, knew that they could not satisfy their need without hurting a child and therefore tried to get professional help to deal with their desires without hurting someone, even risking social alienation.

I think it is a mistake to claim that, for example, all pedophiles are either evil or mentally sick. I think a lot of them are ashamed of their desires and try to fight it and if they could change their sexual orientation, they probably would. The same is probably true for other immoral desires like killing, raping or torturing for sexual satisfaction.

We "normal" people are somewhat lucky that we have a sexual orientation that is socially accepted and can be exercised freely in a moral way. I don't think you can judge somebody because of his sexual orientation in any way.

Of course that doesn't mean it is ok for a pedophile to rape a child or for someone to kill for sexual satisfaction. It does mean, that if those with these desires acknowledge that they can't fulfill their needs in a moral way and then choose not to follow their desires, then they can very well be moral people.

In other words, sexual orientation alone is something that is not sufficient in any way to judge a person. It is neither false, immoral or irrational; it is a fact that must be dealt with.

[Capitalism Forever]

I think it is a mistake to claim that, for example, all pedophiles are either evil or mentally sick. I think a lot of them are ashamed of their desires and try to fight it and if they could change their sexual orientation, they probably would. The same is probably true for other immoral desires like killing, raping or torturing for sexual satisfaction.

Where do you think sexual orientation comes from, then? Arrows of Amor? Your brain throwing dice? Some kind of childhood experience, a la Freud? Nothing in this world happens without a reason; when you have a certain sexual orientation, it is because something caused you to have that sexual orientation.

[crizon]

Where do you think sexual orientation comes from, then? Arrows of Amor? Your brain throwing dice? Some kind of childhood experience, a la Freud? Nothing in this world happens without a reason; when you have a certain sexual orientation, it is because something caused you to have that sexual orientation.

True. I believe it is a matter that science has to answer. As far as I know it is believed that hormone levels during pregnancy play a big role there, but I would not be surprised if early childhood-experiences are a factor too.

All i can clearly say from my own thinking is that an adult can not change his sexual orientation himself. Maybe a heavily traumatic experience can change things, but you defiantly can't simply make a choice about it.

For me it is impossible to find men sexually attractive no matter how much I like a males character or how he looks (if he does not look like a female) and I heavily doubt there is any human out there who can consciously influence his sexual orientation.

Because if that would be the case, why would anybody choose a sexual orientation like pedophilia, when he is deeply ashamed of it and will never be able to live it morally?

I've read about a case where a convicted child molester asked the authorities to keep him in prison when he was about to set free again. He said he felt he still was a danger to children and felt that he would not be able to control his urges.

This guy wanted to stay in prison because of his sexual orientation. If you could influence it in any way, why would he not do it? (In the end authorities set him free against his wish and he ended up raping another child.. but that's beside the point)

[Jackethan]

I'm glad you summarized your ideas in a single post.

It is wrong to say that anybody chooses who or what they find attractive, because it doesn't happen that way. There is not a point in one's life, young or old, where one says, "I want to be attracted to... this." Sexual attraction is automatic. It is possible that people or events at a very young age help influence what kind (or kinds) of person(s) one wants, but since nobody (that I have ever heard of) remembers this, it is a rough theory at best.

I disagree. I chose to be homosexual. I am attracted to many attributes which can be found in both men and women, most of them are non-physical attributes, and I chose to pursue relationships with men over women after comparing my attractions to average personality traits of each gender. As far as attraction from a strictly sexual sense, or in other words, arousal, I have found that I can be made to be aroused by nearly anything, from the attractive to the unattractive to the disgusting. I thus reject the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is simply something you're born with.

To further demonstrate: At what point did you discover that you were gay? What evidence led you to that conclusion? A common test men put on themselves is to watch heterosexual pornography, while masturbating, and then try watching homosexual pornography, again while masturbating, and call the result their proof. Similarly other men say 'I found myself aroused when looking at men, but not when looking at women.' To me these responses show a lack of introspection. Perfectly healthy people of any orientation may get more aroused over homosexual relations than heterosexual ones purely from the 'taboo' factor. They view it as something they shouldn't do, something bad, thus it becomes exciting. Not at all dissimilar to the way some people claim to have less interest in drinking alcohol after they pass the legal age, because it is not 'the bad thing' anymore. I specifically remember all my sexual development in this area, as it has always been an area of interest to me, both physically (heh) and intellectually. My attractions and sexual orientation have been anything but automatic.

Edits: Changed sentence structure for clarity.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Jackethan

[MichaelH]

I disagree. I chose to be homosexual. I am attracted to many attributes which can be found in both men and women, most of them are non-physical attributes, and I chose to pursue relationships with men over women after comparing my attractions to average personality traits of each gender. As far as attraction from a strictly sexual sense, or in other words, arousal, I have found that I can be made to be aroused by nearly anything, from the attractive to the unattractive to the disgusting. I thus reject the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is simply something you're born with.

From the description you've given, you're clearly bisexual, not homosexual. That you choose to act only on your homosexual attractions doesn't negate the heterosexual attractions.

Your post highlights a real issue with US and current Western cultures in how sexuality is defined. We try to isolate sexuality into a very few categories. Are you gay or straight? Butch or femme? Top or bottom?

Kinsey recognized that sexuality is a continuum, with people ranging from purely homosexual to purely heterosexual. The Kinsey Scale ranks where people fall along that basis. There can be more to the attraction, of course, but it's a good start for broadening the discussion. Sexuality, as Jackethan points out, is a complex subject.

In the words of Captain Jack Harkness: "You people and your tiny, little labels!"

[intellectualammo]

Nothing in this world happens without a reason; when you have a certain sexual orientation, it is because something caused you to have that sexual orientation.

What you said reminded mv of a quote from this article:

Spend time talking to Real Doll aficionados as I have over the past year, and you come to understand that behind every Real Doll is a man with a reason.

One can clearly sve that if you'd watch the documentary on Real Dolls titled "Guys and Dolls", whcih you can find on Google video and the like. Some might laugh their asses off at these guys and their dolls, but hopefully after watching it, they at least regret some of their laughter, once the context sets in. Intvresting is how they got started, which I think he is the first-hander in the field, and now others are going off in their own directions now too:

Matt McMullen is the Dr. Frankenstein and Henry Ford of love dolls. The founder of Real Dolls is in his mid-30s and dresses like a skateboarder, with multiple piercings and a pretty face. A decade ago, McMullen was a struggling sculptor, making 12-inch nudes out of resin in his garage. For a challenge, he decided to build bigger nudes with poseable bodies that were softer, inviting to the touch. When he posted photographs of his work on the Internet, e-mails poured in asking whether his creations were sex dolls and if so, how much did they cost. After 10 different men offered to pay McMullen $3,000 for converted sculptures, he couldn't refuse, and it was back to the drawing board to design soft breasts and penetrable genitalia. "I had to make it feel good," he says. "As good as rubber can feel." His early adopters were thrilled with the results and soon launched their own photo Web sites. With that free viral promotion, McMullen became the leading purveyor of solid-body silicone love. With $2 million in sales last year, McMullen now employs 14 people at his San Marcos, Calif., company and makes about six or seven dolls a week, each requiring 80 hours of labor.

The Steven Mallory of AHC's? Yes, to a certain extent. The manufacturers of the dolls really work with a buyer in order to custom make the man-made dolls for them. When purchased, you can buy clothes, panties, lingerie, wigs, makeup, and with some dolls, like RD's, you can even buy different faces to put on your doll. This whole market is growing and developing nicely and profitably. I think I even read somewhere that the FDA doesn't regulate sex toys/dolls, but I can't find a source to cite. But anyways, I am happy that I am now going to be a part of this subculture (that hopefully when put out into the main culture will be even more acceptable and not have a creepy connotation or whatever associated with them) and I havv already been welcomed into the RSSD family. So as I stated earlier in the thread about the dollies and reasons for purchasing one, I won't repeat it here, and stop so as not to fray the thread up too much. I personally see nothing at all immoral or irrational about these dollies, as such, but only perhaps the reasoning behind purchasing one and what you do with or to them - so it's context dependent. For some in the subculture they are way more than just dollies to have sexual encounters with, they are companions, girlfriends, someone to come home to, not just something hanging from a neck bolt in your closet, or in a box undet your bed, you take out when you are "in the mood". But I would however be careful with them because of the chemicals and compounds used in the manufacturing of some of the dollies; know what you are getting into, so to speak.

[Jackethan]

From the description you've given, you're clearly bisexual, not homosexual. That you choose to act only on your homosexual attractions doesn't negate the heterosexual attractions.

So sexual orientation is a measurement of abstract unknowable psychological tendencies, not a measurement of action?

If one day they do discover the 'gay' gene, if such exists, are people who don't have it but still wish to be gay barred from that orientation? Similarly, if a psychologist tells you 'you're most likely straight' are you then acting against your nature if you have relations with a man?

If a psychologist told you, if you're straight, that you're absolutely 100% homosexual, and they have lab tests on your brain chemistry to prove it, would you just toss your hands up and go "Well, I guess that's the hand of cards I was dealt."

This no choice thing smacks of determinism.

[MichaelH]

So sexual orientation is a measurement of abstract unknowable psychological tendencies, not a measurement of action?

One's personal psychological tendencies are not unknowable.

You are correct that sexual orientation is not a measurement of action. "Gay man trapped in a relationship with a woman he married to convince himself he was straight" is a common life pattern among gay men. The men may seek same-sex sex outside of marriage, or on the internet, or just be deeply repressed and unhappy for the rest of their lives. They are living against their sexual orientation, and they know it even if they do not act on it.

If a psychologist told you, if you're straight, that you're absolutely 100% homosexual, and they have lab tests on your brain chemistry to prove it, would you just toss your hands up and go "Well, I guess that's the hand of cards I was dealt."

This no choice thing smacks of determinism.

An important part of Objectivism is the understanding that words have specific meanings. If you are sexually attracted primarily to the opposite sex, you are heterosexual. If you are sexually attracted primarily to the same sex, you are homosexual/gay. If you are sexually attracted to both sexes roughly equally, you are bisexual. People on the fringes of these categories are generally free to categorize themselves as they see fit. The words fit the person, not the other way around.

The most meaning that could be derived from a lab test would be a moment's idle curiosity: "So I'm a straight person with the brain of a gay person. Huh. That's interesting."

As for determinism, other gay people's posts in this thread and on this board should help inform your opinion. Bisexual people are certainly free to enjoy same-sex relationships! However, don't assume all gay people are like you just because they are doing physically similar things.

[themadkat]

As I explained in conversation with Jackethan a few days ago, I think that not only is there a continuum of sexual preferences (i.e. straight to bisexual to gay) but also a continuum of flexibility in preference, i.e. are you willing to be "heteroflexible" or do you lose wood at the first mention of men touching? You might think bisexual people would be the most flexible but that might not be necessarily the case - for example, if a bisexual person is attracted only to androgynous people, male or female, but not to others, I would not consider them very flexible.

[Jackethan]

As for determinism, other gay people's posts in this thread and on this board should help inform your opinion. Bisexual people are certainly free to enjoy same-sex relationships! However, don't assume all gay people are like you just because they are doing physically similar things.

I'm not going to cede a point because everyone else believes it's true.

What scares me about many other homosexual arguments on this thread is that A: People say that gay is not a choice, they do not say 'for some people it is, for some people it is not.' They simply say it is not a choice.

B: They use the 'gay is not a choice' argument to defend the morality of homosexuality, AS IF that meant that if being gay WAS a choice, it would be completely immoral.

As far as assuming all gay people are like me, I was not doing that, it was the other gay people who were assuming that I am like them.

[JASKN]

I disagree. I chose to be homosexual.

[...]

I have found that I can be made to be aroused by nearly anything, from the attractive to the unattractive to the disgusting. I thus reject the claim that homosexuality is not a choice, or that it is simply something you're born with.

To further demonstrate: At what point did you discover that you were gay? What evidence led you to that conclusion?

When I read your post, my first thought was that I had never heard any gay man express experience that mirrors yours. As I said before, the unanimous story goes, "I've been gay as long as I can remember." And my experience is exactly the same.

In fact, thanks to the religion I was brought up with, I spent two or three years in my early teens trying to will myself to want girls sexually, because I thought my whole life was over if I was gay. I could never do it. In the end I was always thinking about boys.

To CF:

What attribute does a man have that a woman doesn't and you find attractive?

Is it that you first felt a very strong admiration for a guy that eventually grew into romantic love and a desire for his body? Or did you first have the desire to have a masculine partner in life, and then sought out someone who met your expectations? Or is it that you get more excited about strong and hard than delicate and soft? Or something else ... ?

The first thing I remember about being gay was that I wanted to look at boys' bodies, and I was 12. I was not conciously aware of any of the things you mention here. In fact, I have never considered what it would be like to be in a relationship with a girl, which is where these kinds of things become important.

To answer these questions:

Out of curiosity, do you find girls completely unattractive, or is it simply that you prefer boys if given a choice?

I checked your first-ever post on this forum just to make sure I was right about you not mentioning sexual preferences, and found this:

Have you since changed your mind on this? Or do you hold that sexual desire is an exception?

I think women can be stunning. I particularly like a good dress that accentuates a perfect sillhouette, and I like a slightly curvy but still skinny woman (the red-dress woman in Casino Royale is a perfect example. Another good example is Angelina Jolie. Another, Cindy Crawford, though her boobs are not quite right). Then there are other things non-sex-specific, like clothing color matching skin tone, and facial features. I have noticed that I like a few similar kinds of facial features on both men and women, but that has changed a little over time, and I like a bigger pool of features these days. But, I have never been sexually aroused by a woman. My first kiss was with a girl, and it was a strange experience where I didn't feel much of anything except the lip contact.

As for what I wrote in my first post, it was concerning an objective reality "vs" universal truths, which I was hung up on at the time. I hadn't yet formed much of an opinion on the workings of the human mind, besides that I suspected I could completely alter all of my personality traits, feelings, desires, and so forth. Right now, I still think that all of those things can be altered, since as you mentioned, all things have a cause. They just need figured out. But right now, I doubt one could indipendently totally change his personality, for example. And yes, I do suspect sexuality lies in a different category, brain-wise. I have nothing but anecdotal experience, and what I've heard other gays say, to back it up.

So to summarize, as soon as I hit puberty I wanted to look at boys, and it has never stopped. Before puberty I was unaware of sex. I never made a choice between sexualities, and in fact I tried to fight my gay urges for years unsuccessfully. As I understand it, being gay is exactly like being straight, sexually, except that you desire a person of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. And being with a woman seems bizarre to me.

Edited May 19, 2009 by JASKN

[Capitalism Forever]

All i can clearly say from my own thinking is that an adult can not change his sexual orientation himself. [...] Because if that would be the case, why would anybody choose a sexual orientation like pedophilia, when he is deeply ashamed of it and will never be able to live it morally?

That is like asking, "Why would anybody choose to be selfless, when it means sacrificing his own values?" People make irrational choices all the time.

But I think there is still a little misunderstanding about what is meant by choice here. If you re-read my posts in this thread, you'll find that I never said "people choose their own sexual orientation." My original post that sparked this sub-thread said:

I think both what you are attracted to, and whether you are attracted to anything, are primarily the functions of your psychology, and are strongly influenced by the volitional choices leading to your value-judgments. I don't think people are "born that way," neither homosexual nor asexual; they become that way through the ideas they accept.

Later, in the post summarizing my theory, I wrote:

The criteria you use to make this judgment [on what is the best way to sexually stimulate you] are entirely up for you to choose: you can make an objective decision based on the nature of your organs and the personal qualities you have identified as the worthiest of being excited about--or you can uncritically adopt the criteria used by those in your social circles, or be guided by your whims, etc.

So it is your standard of value with regard to sex that you can consciously choose--but even that doesn't mean that everybody actually does consciously choose his standard of value with regard to sex. The primary choice you make is to focus your mind on what kind of sexual stimulation is the most proper for you; if you do choose to focus your mind on it, then you will be making a conscious choice on your sexual standard of value, but if you do not choose to focus on it, then your sexual standard of value will be chosen for you by some external factor(s) that you have no control over and probably are not even conscious of.

That means that if the external factors shaping your whims happen to drive you to pedophilia, you will become a pedophile, whether you like it or not! And you will be morally responsible for being a pedophile, whether you like it or not, because it was you that could have prevented it by focusing your mind.

[Capitalism Forever]

In fact, thanks to the religion I was brought up with, I spent two or three years in my early teens trying to will myself to want girls sexually

Gosh, then it's no wonder you became a homosexual! If there are two books, one of which is required reading and the other you are curious to read, which will you enjoy reading more?

I am reminded of Miss Rand's essay on Causality Versus Duty. When I wrote,

I also remember feeling a strong "friendship" towards some boys, and consciously telling myself that I ought not look at that as a potential romantic relationship

I used the words "I ought not" in the sense "I wouldn't want to," rather than "they don't want me to" or "God doesn't want me to" or any other variant of "I'm not supposed to." I didn't look upon a homosexual relationship as "forbidden," but rather as "a competitor of heterosexuality." If something is forbidden, especially if forbidden without any rational explanation, children will often conclude that it must be forbidden precisely because it's good for you as far as its causal effects in actual reality are concerned. This inevitably sets up a conflict between the "thou ought not" of duty and the "I ought" of causality (or at least what you think is true in causality). You can keep repeating to yourself the "thou ought not" of duty, but it will not lessen your desire for the forbidden fruit--in fact, it is likely to strengthen it. On the other hand, if you are free to choose between two competing packages, and you approach the choice as "I ought to choose the one that is better for me," then the "I ought to" and the "I want to" are both referring to causality, and coming to the conscious conclusion "I ought to choose package A" will tell your subconscious that package A is better for you--and thus you will desire package A and be left cold by package B.

I think women can be stunning. I particularly like a good dress that accentuates a perfect sillhouette, and I like a slightly curvy but still skinny woman (the red-dress woman in Casino Royale is a perfect example. Another good example is Angelina Jolie. Another, Cindy Crawford, though her boobs are not quite right).

You sound like you've very much got what it takes to appreciate women.

But, I have never been sexually aroused by a woman. My first kiss was with a girl, and it was a strange experience where I didn't feel much of anything except the lip contact.

Yeah, I too remember reading required novels where I didn't feel much of anything except the pages under my fingers. And I would feel the same way if I were kissed on the lips by a hag like Helen Thomas, or even a younger girl that I didn't find attractive. Anatomically, the mouths of men and women are pretty much the same, so I don't think it's some physical aspect of the mouth that makes the difference--but rather, your mental evaluation of the person that does the kissing.

[themadkat]

CapFo, I have a question for you...do you believe it's possible to meet a wonderful person of the sex you are most attracted to who you deeply care for and admire and who shares many if not most of your values, and not be sexually attracted to them? I am not talking about someone with a horrible deformity here...I mean a basically normal looking guy or girl who you are capable of being fantastically good friends with.

[JASKN]

Gosh, then it's no wonder you became a homosexual! If there are two books, one of which is required reading and the other you are curious to read, which will you enjoy reading more?

But this implies that most or all religious boys should be gay. And that there has to be another explanation for non-religious gays.

You sound like you've very much got what it takes to appreciate women.

Just not sexually... Edited May 19, 2009 by JASKN

[Capitalism Forever]

CapFo, I have a question for you...do you believe it's possible to meet a wonderful person of the sex you are most attracted to who you deeply care for and admire and who shares many if not most of your values, and not be sexually attracted to them?

Certainly. Why do you ask?

[Capitalism Forever]

But this implies that most or all religious boys should be gay. And that there has to be another explanation for non-religious gays.

LOL, that would be a rather concrete-bound interpretation of my post. I wasn't saying, "You became gay because you were religious," I was saying that the premises you were brought up with combined with some specific events in your life to make you think of boys as sexually exciting.

Other people, who had other concrete events in their lives, may associate different things with the excitement of the forbidden fruit. For example, if somebody had his first sexual experience with a nun, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that he always asked his wife to dress as a nun in order to turn him on. I wouldn't think that the explanation for this little kink of his was to be found in his genes or in the randomness of "quantum psychology" or what not; it would be quite clear to me that the explanation was in the exhilarating feeling of breaking a taboo and enjoying a forbidden pleasure that he had come to associate with nuns.

[themadkat]

Certainly. Why do you ask?

Because it seems to me a reasonable analogue for how people would generally feel about those they greatly admire in the sex they are not attracted to, in general. Just to pick on JASKN, since he's actively posting to this thread, if the most amazing incredible woman in the world that shared all his values became his friend, he would probably feel the same way about her as you would feel about your best guy pal - there's just no switch that can be flipped to make those thoughts sexual, even if for some reason he WANTED them to be.

I mean, shoot, I hear straight people dating the opposite sex have this problem all the time. "Oh, he's so nice, and I really like him, but there's just no CHEMISTRY, so we'll only be friends." I know chemistry is a metaphor for sexual spark and connection but sometimes I take it literally, as well - people's scent can be attractive, for instance.

As for me, the reasons I'm attracted to men are pretty much all physical. Although I have a very broad tolerance for male looks and what I find attractive, you could say if I had a type it could be described as "scruffy" or "rugged" - think Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. There's not some concept of "maleness" about the person that I'm after, so much as it's just the male body itself that gets me going. I'm not looking for a "male personality", if there even is such a thing, except insofar as I seem to get along better with men than women especially in casual everyday interaction. Attraction is a physical thing. The relationship is built on much more than that, of course, but the "spark" is all physical.