Homosexual TV shows, movies

[thaicurious]

11 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

Since you have used the word I'll tell you: there is nothing normal about homosexuality, heterosexuality is the foundation of life and evolution.

 

Now should we tolerate it? I'd say yes, unless it become militant to the point where our society is at risk.

 

The foundation of life and evolution, huh? Fix your skirt dear, your dirty ignorance is showing.

 

https://pressbooks-dev.oer.hawaii.edu/biology/chapter/cell-division/#:~:text=The continuity of life from,of two new daughter cells.

"BIOLOGY

Cell Reproduction

Cell Division

Learning Objectives

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Describe the structure of prokaryotic and eukaryotic genomes

Distinguish between chromosomes, genes, and traits

Describe the mechanisms of chromosome compaction

The continuity of life from one cell to another has its foundation in the reproduction of cells by way of the cell cycle. The cell cycle is an orderly sequence of events that describes the stages of a cell’s life from the division of a single parent cell to the production of two new daughter cells." (bolding mine)

 

So you can take the heterosexuality you think superior and shove where the sun don't shine because "THE FOUNDATION OF LIFE and evolution" (your words) IS ASEXUAL Single Cell Division, NOT HETEROsexuality

[likerdup1]

The times they are a changing my friend. Unless you are a philosopher, a Dr. of social science or the like all you will do is drive yourself into depression. Your conclusions are inaccurate and are not well informed.  By the way. You remember a show called "Three's Company". It aired back in the mid 70's. One of the main characters was portrayed as gay. It's nothing new on TV.

 

Just accept that things are changing, be happy you are still alive and move on. People are a lot smarter and resilient than you think it seems. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Nobody is "ramming anything down anybody's throat". People choose to watch shows. Kids will figure things our for themselves. To make such conclusions from the arm chair is a mistake. Unless you are a Doctor in the field of social science or psychology and have done extensive study on the subject and have solid evidence that TV show's portraying gay relationships is "damaging" etc. just forget about it. You'll be a lot happier in the long run.

 

Edited January 6 by likerdup1

[KhunLA]

18 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

Since you have used the word I'll tell you: there is nothing normal about homosexuality, heterosexuality is the foundation of life and evolution.

 

Now should we tolerate it? I'd say yes, unless it become militant to the point where our society is at risk.

Sexual pleasure in normal.  Doesn't matter with who or how it's achieved, that's up to the consenting partners.  

 

Nobody decides for someone else how to be happy.  There is no right or wrong way to enjoy life.

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ... change the channel, or fast forward.

 

Society at risk ...   Who's doing who is the least of society's concerns.  

[Flyguy330]

21 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

I also find it perplexing that many of the zealots will decry male anal sex as a sin, whereas the biggest market for female anal porn is from men!

That's an interesting point, because the increased volume of male/female anal in what I'd call mainstream porn is quite a noticeable trend. It's got to the point now where a porn movie isn't 'legit' unless there's an anal scene in it. The poor porno model girls have had to go along with it I guess, only a few seem to refuse to do it. You never see it in their movies.  I'd guess that many of them just don't like it (pain) and many of them are worried about the future incontinence issues they'll probably suffer from. Meanwhile the crazies are out there too, taking 2 or 3 up the ass at the same time. I often think they have to be stoned to do it.

I've tried anal with a girlfriend. She didn't enjoy it, and neither did I. The feeling for me was like having a tight elastic band rolled up and down your cock, and none of the full length gripping/massaging of vaginal sex.

I think the attraction for many guys watching it is the violent side of it. The anus is not designed to have things shoved up it, quite the opposite. The viewing 'thrill' seems to be all about that 'forced entry' angle. Kinda rapey in a way.

I also have my suspicions that a lot of the porno producers/directors are gays, and this plays into their desire for the normalisation of anal sex in the mainstream too. They're probably the types who will happily tell you that there's a 'big market' for it, and if you enjoy watching/doing anal sex you are really a closet bi or gay yourself.

Edited January 7 by Flyguy330

[Voodoochile]

On 12/14/2023 at 4:51 PM, KhunLA said:

What's not normal ...

... gay people existing ?

... gay people having sex ?

... gay people kissing ?

 

I know a few gay folks, and they all seem normal to me.   What ever normal is ?  Act and relate to each other the same as non gays.

 

Suggestion ... change the channel.

What is not normal is claiming it is the new norm to be gay.  they should be tolerated by societies as are others with physical or mental conditions but not glorified or applauded. glorifying homosexuality is a disaster on every level.
 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

What is not normal is claiming it is the new norm to be gay.  they should be tolerated by societies as are others with physical or mental conditions but not glorified or applauded. glorifying homosexuality is a disaster on every level.
 

Semantics.

Nobody is suggesting that everyone is or should be gay.

Is having hazel eyes normal?

Is having hazel eyes a physical or mental condition?

Also it's not about glorifying.

Widely representing gay people in media frees creators not to worry about showing all kinds of gay people, including villians.

The point is more like showing gay people are PEOPLE, period.

[Jingthing]

On 1/7/2024 at 4:38 PM, Flyguy330 said:

That's an interesting point, because the increased volume of male/female anal in what I'd call mainstream porn is quite a noticeable trend. It's got to the point now where a porn movie isn't 'legit' unless there's an anal scene in it. The poor porno model girls have had to go along with it I guess, only a few seem to refuse to do it. You never see it in their movies.  I'd guess that many of them just don't like it (pain) and many of them are worried about the future incontinence issues they'll probably suffer from. Meanwhile the crazies are out there too, taking 2 or 3 up the ass at the same time. I often think they have to be stoned to do it.

I've tried anal with a girlfriend. She didn't enjoy it, and neither did I. The feeling for me was like having a tight elastic band rolled up and down your cock, and none of the full length gripping/massaging of vaginal sex.

I think the attraction for many guys watching it is the violent side of it. The anus is not designed to have things shoved up it, quite the opposite. The viewing 'thrill' seems to be all about that 'forced entry' angle. Kinda rapey in a way.

I also have my suspicions that a lot of the porno producers/directors are gays, and this plays into their desire for the normalisation of anal sex in the mainstream too. They're probably the types who will happily tell you that there's a 'big market' for it, and if you enjoy watching/doing anal sex you are really a closet bi or gay yourself.

You're entitled to have your own opinions, in this case a completely daft conspiracy theory that gays are in control of straight porn and pushing their anal sex agenda. 

As far as your personal experience of active anal sex, that's your personal experience and true to you. I think any kind of penetrative sex can be "rapey" and that can be a source of excitement when it (hopefully) isn't literally rape!

I have a suggestion though.

You're a man.

You have a prostate.

Which means you're designed to get a kind of pleasure from passive anal sex that women can't possibly get.

So may I suggest if you want to be truly fair and balanced about this entire anal sex matter, assume the position for the other side. No homo needed either if you don't understand how that can be a hetero thing, see google. 

Also to add, it's my impression that anal play has become much more popular with the younger crowd (mostly straight people as people are mostly straight), but I think that's mostly about rimming, not penetration.

 

Edited January 8 by Jingthing

[Voodoochile]

54 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Semantics.

Nobody is suggesting that everyone is or should be gay.

Is having hazel eyes normal?

Is having hazel eyes a physical or mental condition?

Also it's not about glorifying.

Widely representing gay people in media frees creators not to worry about showing all kinds of gay people, including villians.

The point is more like showing gay people are PEOPLE, period.

“Nobody is suggesting that everyone should be gay”

 

No nobody is suggesting that and nor did I💁🏼‍♂️ Right or wrong is not a question of numbers.

 

No having hazel eyes is not a mental or physical condition it is a physical trait (clutz) having hazel or any other color of eyes does not effect a species ability to evolve and therefore survive naturally.

All humans “are people” some are good some are bad some do things the right way and some do them wrong though it seems evident to favor the good that do things right or at the very least not to glorify the others who are doing things wrong.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

“Nobody is suggesting that everyone should be gay”

 

No nobody is suggesting that and nor did I💁🏼‍♂️ Right or wrong is not a question of numbers.

 

No having hazel eyes is not a mental or physical condition it is a physical trait (clutz) having hazel or any other color of eyes does not effect a species ability to evolve and therefore survive naturally.

All humans “are people” some are good some are bad some do things the right way and some do them wrong though it seems evident to favor the good that do things right or at the very least not to glorify the others who are doing things wrong.

Back to biology class for you.

Does the species depend on every or even most men sperming up to make babies?

Do you know how many sperm are in ONE man's ejaculation?

Do you know how many offspring one man, Genghis Khan, had?

The species is not at risk because gay people exist.

Homosexuality has always existed in humans and is found naturally in many other species.

Let's face reality -- you just have an IRRATIONAL prejudice and it's as ugly a prejudice as racism, etc.

Edited January 8 by Jingthing

[Voodoochile]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Back to biology class for you.

Does the species depend on every or even most men sperming up babies?

Do you know how many sperm are on ONE man's ejaculation?

The species is not at risk because gay people exist.

Homosexuality has always existed in humans and is found naturally in many other species.

Let's face reality -- you just have an IRRATIONAL prejudice. 

A very RATIONAL prejudice against the entire lgbtq movement thing yes.

on an individual level I just find it wrong, disgusting and tragic for the/your parents.

 

a lot of different human behaviors have “always existed” that does not mean that they are good and should be followed.

 

found naturally in a few other species….yes, some species eat there mating partners once they have produced offspring and some practice cannibalism, are you suggesting it would be ok for us to do same💁🏼‍♂️💁🏼‍♂️
 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Voodoochile said:

A very RATIONAL prejudice against the entire lgbtq movement thing yes.

on an individual level I just find it wrong, disgusting and tragic for the/your parents.

 

a lot of different human behaviors have “always existed” that does not mean that they are good and should be followed.

 

found naturally in a few other species….yes, some species eat there mating partners once they have produced offspring and some practice cannibalism, are you suggesting it would be ok for us to do same💁🏼‍♂️💁🏼‍♂️
 

 

 

Antigay bigots want it both ways.

Some say why that's unnatural!

Then when they find out it's natural, they say, you're animals! (As if straight people aren't animals.)

It's not a "few" species.

I get you now. Your prejudice is hard wired in. Nothing further to discuss. 

 

[Voodoochile]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Antigay bigots want it both ways.

Some say why that's unnatural!

Then when they find out it's natural, they say, you're animals! (As if straight people aren't animals.)

It's not a "few" species.

I get you now. Your prejudice is hard wired in. Nothing further to discuss. 

 

Unfortunately you obviously don’t “get” much💁🏼‍♂️

 

but here is just a bit more info for you to chew (or suck on) if you prefer⬇️⬇️
 

Applying the term homosexual to animals

The term homosexual was coined by the Hungarian writer and campaigner Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.^[12] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.^[13] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. According to Bruce Bagemihl, when describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.^{[5]: 122–166}

Bailey et al. says:^[2]

Homosexual: in animals, this has been used to refer to same-sex behavior that is not sexual in character (e.g. 'homosexual tandem running' in termites), same-sex courtship or copulatory behavior occurring over a short period of time (e.g. 'homosexual mounting' in cockroaches and rams) or long-term pair bonds between same-sex partners that might involve any combination of courting, copulating, parenting and affectional behaviors (e.g. 'homosexual pair bonds' in gulls). In humans, the term is used to describe individual sexual behaviors as well as long-term relationships, but in some usages connotes a gay or lesbian social identity. Scientific writing would benefit from reserving this anthropomorphic term for humans and not using it to describe behavior in other animals, because of its deeply rooted context in human society.

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, Voodoochile said:

Unfortunately you obviously don’t “get” much💁🏼‍♂️

 

but here is just a bit more info for you to chew (or suck on) if you prefer⬇️⬇️
 

Applying the term homosexual to animals

The term homosexual was coined by the Hungarian writer and campaigner Karl Maria Kertbeny in 1868 to describe same-sex sexual attraction and sexual behavior in humans.^[12] Its use in animal studies has been controversial for two main reasons: animal sexuality and motivating factors have been and remain poorly understood, and the term has strong cultural implications in western society that are irrelevant for species other than humans.^[13] Thus homosexual behavior has been given a number of terms over the years. According to Bruce Bagemihl, when describing animals, the term homosexual is preferred over gay, lesbian, and other terms currently in use, as these are seen as even more bound to human homosexuality.^{[5]: 122–166}

Bailey et al. says:^[2]

Homosexual: in animals, this has been used to refer to same-sex behavior that is not sexual in character (e.g. 'homosexual tandem running' in termites), same-sex courtship or copulatory behavior occurring over a short period of time (e.g. 'homosexual mounting' in cockroaches and rams) or long-term pair bonds between same-sex partners that might involve any combination of courting, copulating, parenting and affectional behaviors (e.g. 'homosexual pair bonds' in gulls). In humans, the term is used to describe individual sexual behaviors as well as long-term relationships, but in some usages connotes a gay or lesbian social identity. Scientific writing would benefit from reserving this anthropomorphic term for humans and not using it to describe behavior in other animals, because of its deeply rooted context in human society.

(Unsourced) straw man argument.

As long as we're playing that game ...

 

Who's Gay? What's Straight? - The Invention Of Heterosexuality | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

Quote

In 1901, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, published in Philadelphia, continued to define "Heterosexuality" as "Abnormal or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex."" Dorland's heterosexuality, a new "appetite," was clearly identified with an "opposite sex" hunger. But that craving was still aberrant. Dorland's calling heterosexuality "abnormal or perverted" is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary's first Supplement (1933), a "misapplied" definition. But contrary to the OED, Dorland's is a perfectly legitimate understanding of heterosexuality according to a procreative norm.

 

[Voodoochile]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

(Unsourced) straw man argument.

As long as we're playing that game ...

 

Who's Gay? What's Straight? - The Invention Of Heterosexuality | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

(Unsourced) straw man argument.

As long as we're playing that game ...

 

Who's Gay? What's Straight? - The Invention Of Heterosexuality | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

 

 

Your the one that keeps changing subjects rather then trying to defend your point of view so I guess that makes you the “straw man”

 

i answered your ridiculous comment on hazel eyes and you changed the subject to animals, I answered you on animals now you are back to humans without ever having any solid arguments which is why you keep hopping around trying to justify what is simple unjustifiable.

 

[Baht Simpson]

1 hour ago, Voodoochile said:

A very RATIONAL prejudice against the entire lgbtq movement thing yes.

on an individual level I just find it wrong, disgusting and tragic for the/your parents.

 

What a dreadful thing thing to say. 

[Voodoochile]

5 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

What a dreadful thing thing to say. 

 

 

you are allowed your opinion💁🏼‍♂️
thank you for sharing😉

[BobBKK]

On 1/6/2024 at 5:21 PM, Ben Zioner said:

Fairy nuff. But "empirical evidence" isn't overwhelmingly convincing. My guess is that they wrote that just to be fashionable. I wonder why? What does anyone have to gain from such "normal deviances"? At at time where it is understood that being deviant doesn't always make one a criminal.

 Yes, they are American, so they must be right, right?  what a farce America has become.

[BobBKK]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Antigay bigots want it both ways.

Some say why that's unnatural!

Then when they find out it's natural, they say, you're animals! (As if straight people aren't animals.)

It's not a "few" species.

I get you now. Your prejudice is hard wired in. Nothing further to discuss. 

 

 You sound very anti-hetro?  why not just do your thing without telling us all the time - we DONT CARE.

[JBChiangRai]

46 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 You sound very anti-hetro?  why not just do your thing without telling us all the time - we DONT CARE.

 

Who is "we"?  You don't speak for me.

[BobBKK]

7 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

Who is "we"?  You don't speak for me.

 We is 99.99% of US - obviously you are "they".  Confused are you?

[Jingthing]

59 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 You sound very anti-hetro?  why not just do your thing without telling us all the time - we DONT CARE.

Just anti bigotry.

[BobBKK]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Just anti bigotry.

 

I'm anti-virtual signalling - everyone can live their lives how they choose. There is no need to display it or, I grant you, attack it. Just do your thing in peace.

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

 

I'm anti-virtual signalling - everyone can live their lives how they choose. There is no need to display it or, I grant you, attack it. Just do your thing in peace.

The topic is about media representation.

[Flyguy330]

14 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Quote

You're entitled to have your own opinions, in this case a completely daft conspiracy theory that gays are in control of straight porn and pushing their anal sex agenda. 

It's just a theory, sure. But there's a big gay porn industry in the US and I'd be really surprised if none of their producer/directors ever work in straight porn too. If they're any 'good' they'd be in demand. They don't need to be 'in control' of it to have an influence on it. Lets face it, that's where the 'wokeness' in mainstream cinema is coming from. I don't think hundreds of straight film producers/directors just decided one fine day that they all had to start creating more 'woke content'.  So where does it all come from? What's driving it?

 

Quote

I have a suggestion though.

You're a man.

You have a prostate.

Which means you're designed to get a kind of pleasure from passive anal sex that women can't possibly get.

So may I suggest if you want to be truly fair and balanced about this entire anal sex matter, assume the position for the other side. No homo needed either if you don't understand how that can be a hetero thing, see google.

 

I've no doubt there's a lot of 'confusion' out there these days. But for me, sex and sexual attraction is about far more than just 'getting off'. It is a package of things that starts fundamentally, for me, with a certain aesthetic. I won't insult you by using perjoratives about the aesthetics of male/male sexual behaviour, but I will simply say that the beauty of a lovely womans face, eyes, hair, skin, lips, body, smell, touch, voice and mind can never be matched by the ugly utilitarian form of the human male. I'll admit that ladyboys in Thailand can do a damn good impression. But that's all it is. And when I see one I can spot it right away, and after that all I see is a guy in drag who has spent a fortune on plastic surgery with the aim for fooling the ignorant. But the vast majority of gay men in the West don't look like that. They are the boring ordinary Joe Soaps sitting next to you in the bus. What can possibly be attractive about them? I just don't get it. It seems almost like an intentional rejection of beauty, which runs contrary to every fibre of my being.

[Voodoochile]

11 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 Yes, they are American, so they must be right, right?  what a farce America has become.

Yes it was once the “land of the free and the home of the brave”

it has become….

the land of the freaks and the home of the gays

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Voodoochile said:

Yes it was once the “land of the free and the home of the brave”

it has become….

the land of the freaks and the home of the gays

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Voodoochile]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Only if you are either of the two, or both💁🏼‍♂️

[JBChiangRai]

9 hours ago, Voodoochile said:

Yes it was once the “land of the free and the home of the brave”

it has become….

the land of the freaks and the home of the gays

 

8 hours ago, Voodoochile said:

Only if you are either of the two, or both💁🏼‍♂️

 

Clearly, as a homophobe you are one of the "freaks"

[Voodoochile]

27 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

Clearly, as a homophobe you are one of the "freaks"

Most parents would disagree.

 

As would billions of people on the planet  

For it is still considered illegal in 64 UN member states. 
And I’m not from the US💁🏼‍♂️

 But nice try though👍👏

Edited January 10 by Voodoochile

[Fairynuff]

On 1/6/2024 at 3:59 PM, Flyguy330 said:

I'm interested in this issue on a more scientific level, as in, what is the evolutionary benefit of homosexuality? Since male/male sex does not lead to reproduction, how can a 'gene for gayness' be passed on? One of the central arguments gays make is that they didn't choose to be gay, that it is biologically 'forced' on them, ergo it is 'natural'. So it's genetic in nature.

There is clear evidence of homosexuality dating back to the dawn of civilisation. But if its genetic, but cannot reproduce itself, how does it get passed on over millenia? Evolution has pretty effective methods of eliminating 'unproductive traits' from the genome, naturally. One postulation is that it is a mutation, a kind of glitch, which is in fact the very essence of the evolutionary process. But why would this 'glitch' keep recurring with such high frequency in the population? Is there a statistical method which can identify how often a mutation would occur in a population? Does it add up with the mutation theory for gayness?  

If it is not a statistically explicable genetic mutation 'event', what is it? 

I've read some recent theories which put a more 'social' causation on gayness. The theory says that low status males could raise their status in certain communities by being gay, or at least swinging both ways. But the problem I see with that argument is that it means the inferred conclusion that gayness is in fact a 'lifestyle choice', and not a natural imperative.

I once asked this question of a gay acquaintance of mine. What do you think made you gay? He burst into tears and yelled 'I didn't choose this life'. So I believe him. I believe he can't help himself. I don't have a problem with it - in fact, after that encounter, I can feel nothing but pity for gays. That's why I would not be happy with my son being gay - because it results in a lot of prejudice and aggro, and leads to a more difficult and unhappy existence.

Why are you so obsessed with this? Why do think any of “the gays” want or need your pity? Your gay son if you had one would have a worse life with a parent like you. Homophobia is just ugly. And as for the nature/nurture thing, it’s <deleted>. It’s nature, it really is that simple.