Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[The Gaffer]

Check out this article, about a review of all the research that's been done into gender differences. Challenges a few preconceptions.

Interesting that sexual promiscuity was one of the few differences that stood up to scrutiny: men want to do it more, and aren't as bothered who with, compared with women.

So, gay men tend to have more sexual partners because they're men, not because they're gay.

[Lotesse]

I loved this one, you guys, I really cracked up!!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

And TWFM and BJ and IR and Nerdanel are all open-minded people who would *never* be guilty of prejudice, too!

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I agree with Popper's quote that an open society is closed only to the intollerants

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Check out this article, about a review of all the research that's been done into gender differences. Challenges a few preconceptions.

Interesting that sexual promiscuity was one of the few differences that stood up to scrutiny: men want to do it more, and aren't as bothered who with, compared with women.

So, gay men tend to have more sexual partners because they're men, not because they're gay.

Wordy McWordy Word from Wordistan

I have thought for a while (not just in this thread if I ever mentioned this) that men and women are not that different.

[The Gaffer]

Heh! Why use one when 20 will do?

I agree. We get so focused on the differences between people that we forget that we're all Jock Tamsin's Bairns

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

Well, I can't speak for the others, but I agree with Popper's quote that an open society is closed only to the intollerants

Then it is NOT an open society, is it?

Should we be intolerant of mis-spellers, too? or merely intollerant ?

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by inked

Then it is NOT an open society, is it?

Should we be intolerant of mis-spellers, too? or merely intollerant ?

If we were to be intolerant of misspellers, Inked, you'd suffer from intolerance, noting how your spelling skills shine in, say, the philosophy thread.

[Rían]

I think inked was just having some fun with the Popper quote, which contradicts itself.

[Lotesse]

I know, and NOW I'm having some fun with him!

[inked]

Deconstructionist speelers of da world, unnite!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

And TWFM and BJ and IR and Nerdanel are all open-minded people who would *never* be guilty of prejudice, too!

everyone has prejudices... it's just that some admit it and some do not

[inked]

brownjenkins,

I freely admit my prejudices towards health and I get characterized as homophobic because I cite delineations of studies of the risks of homosexual behaviour and the correlative heterosexual behaviours. Go figure. Clearly your prejudices are better than mine, but you've never been able to demonstrate that conclusively because you allege the relativism of morality. I fail to see how your characterization of my prejudices has any more "correctness" since it's all relative anyway. But we have been here before on many threads.

FYI : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html

I have posted this in full in the AVE PAPA thread but it doesn't show up on the new posts or today's posts for reasons unknown to me (unless it may be presumed to be a "prejudice" excluder? ).

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Clearly your prejudices are better than mine, but you've never been able to demonstrate that conclusively because you allege the relativism of morality. I fail to see how your characterization of my prejudices has any more "correctness" since it's all relative anyway. But we have been here before on many threads.

there is no "better"... we all have our own prejudices, and i'm glad to see you admit to them too

sometimes i just have a hard time connecting the dots with your posts about studies

for instance, let's buy your point for a moment that male homosexual activity is dangerous to your health... where do we go with that info?

do we villify homosexual activity in general, or do we point out to them the ways that their lifestyle can be practiced that make it safer, as we do with heterosexuals?

i see a lot of pointing out of problems but very little in the way of proposing realistic solutions (or even unrealistic ones, for that matter)... isn't healthcare ultimately about helping everyone, no matter what style of life they choose to practice?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

FYI : http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html

I have posted this in full in the AVE PAPA thread but it doesn't show up on the new posts or today's posts for reasons unknown to me (unless it may be presumed to be a "prejudice" excluder? ).

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

what a cheerful sentiment

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i see a lot of pointing out of problems but very little in the way of proposing realistic solutions (or even unrealistic ones, for that matter)... isn't healthcare ultimately about helping everyone, no matter what style of life they choose to practice?

WORD!! Most definitely.

[inked]

Hey, BJ, when the signs say "Reduce speed...Dangerous Curve Ahead" is it a matter of heterosexual or homosexual or simply a matter of slowing down? Or does it make a difference if you have a condom or not? Or if you have used substances to alter your sensorium? Same difference, IMHO, behavior is determinate. You need to know the risks. How you choose to act MAY depend on what you know.

Lots of proposed solutions, BJ, you just don't like them. Not that you are alone, of course.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Lots of proposed solutions, BJ, you just don't like them. Not that you are alone, of course.

of you mean that homosexual males have to be even more careful than heterosexual ones in all aspects of how they practice sex, i agree

what solution of yours did i not like?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

I freely admit my prejudices towards health and I get characterized as homophobic because I cite delineations of studies of the risks of homosexual behaviour and the correlative heterosexual behaviours.

Actually this is erroneous. What you do is submit alternative interpretations (and outright manipulations) of studies that focus primarily on "homosexual behavior" ONLY in the context of how awful and dangerous they are and has very little if anything in correlation regarding "heterosexual behaviors". This of course is simply a misleading and statistically bogus way of interpreting data. Furthermore, the very statement "homosexual behaviour and the correlative heterosexual behaviours" is misinformative since there is no specific homosexual behavior that heterosexuals cant engage in. So you are by definition making a bogus discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals in terms of sexual activity and attempting to use that against homosexuals in favor of your particular agenda.

[Nerdanel]

Originally Posted by inked

And TWFM and BJ and IR and Nerdanel are all open-minded people who would *never* be guilty of prejudice, too!

And, BJ, cow manure can also be a food group..........if you are a fungus!

sorry, can't agree on that one.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Actually this is erroneous. What you do is submit alternative interpretations (and outright manipulations) of studies that focus primarily on "homosexual behavior" ONLY in the context of how awful and dangerous they are and has very little if anything in correlation regarding "heterosexual behaviors". This of course is simply a misleading and statistically bogus way of interpreting data. Furthermore, the very statement "homosexual behaviour and the correlative heterosexual behaviours" is misinformative since there is no specific homosexual behavior that heterosexuals cant engage in. So you are by definition making a bogus discrimination between homosexuals and heterosexuals in terms of sexual activity and attempting to use that against homosexuals in favor of your particular agenda.

IR,

I believe that is known as attributive attack. You attribute what you wish so you may attack a straw man. However, if you cannot correlate the behaviours, allow some research to do so:

"The following figures are taken from one of the largest (850 pp.) studies on this subject, "The Gay Report" (1979), by two homosexual researchers, Karla Jay and Allen Young. The pair and their respondents are stunningly candid. According to their research:

Around 99% of homosexual males engage in oral sex;
91% engage in anal sex;
82% engage in "rimming".......,
22% engage in "fisting".............,
23% engage in "golden showers".............., and
4% engage in "scat" ..............and in "mud rolling".............."

I await your correlative heterosexual data on percentage participations.

Most studies of which I am aware report ~25% of heterosexuals report anal intercourse. I do not recall a percentage of rimming in heterosexual studies but would gladly be enlightened. I have never see "fisting" reported on a percentage basis in hetersosexuals, nor for that matter golden showers or scat or mudrolling.

I do not deny that the behaviours could be performed by heterosexuals. The incidence if occuring would be much less in all categories, most likely, as the marked differential in anal intercourse attests.

But, please, show me the studies to prove me wrong that BEHAVIOUR is the difference.