Has porn increased the prevalence of homosexuality?

Can you give a link? I would like to read some of their stories. How many days had they passed when these fantasies disappeared?

 

And what do you think, fantasies of sucking a cock and being penetrated could came from porn?

I remember old times I just found blowjob parts of a scene boring and always skipped them. But now when a blowjob scene pops up my mind immediately puts me in the woman's place who give the blowjob to a man.... I used to loved round asses and boobs, but now they don't do anything to me.... I am very sad about this.

What do you think guys, could nofap cure this?
(I'm glad to talk with anyone who can relate to this or at least similar things)

 

Watching porn is a degenerate behavior. It's just been normalized. Constantly thinking about sex is mental corruption. You watch filth and think filth all day and bad things will happen. You get corrupted by that garbage.


Question.

Why is it thought that same-sex molestation causes homosexuality what about opposite sex? While male on female gets tons of press the far more common than people like to think female on male is quite prevalent but rarely ever mentioned. It's funny when you bring up the amount of gay child molestation the pro-gays will turn around and say those people are not homosexual they are just pedophiles. That whole segment of society is practically nothing but shaming, trying to control speech, and double talk bullshit.

Everyone in this thread that had anything to say about homosexuality that wasn't part of the script is now a closet homosexual, not that there is anything wrong with that, lol. It's weird, though, how people who are pro-gay use insinuating or calling someone a homosexual as an insult. It's almost like they think something is wrong with it?

 

I dont think any one is 'born that way'. I think it is (really not trying to offend anyone, just an opinion) more of a cop out, a simple thing to say, and explain a very complex idea. I believe we are molded by our environment, conciously and sub conciously. That being said, I dont believe 'being gay' is a choice, either. More a product of a very long and confusing equation, with literally countless variables. Buuut that might just be me lol

 

As you have read in countless posts, all of us anti-gays would love our children the same if they were gay as if they were straight. Dissapointed in their choices, maybe. But cease to love? Unthinkable. You can't just throw straw men out there like that.

To the second, what? Do you actually beleive that the beliefs of the Christian church about sexuality are worse than all perversion? Talk about perspective. The fact is people have a right to believe what they want and the beliefs you are attacking are the healthiest, and most productive beliefs that exist on the matter.

@IGY I know you are a smart guy, you are around a lot. Don't get sucked up in nonsense like this. I would expect nothing more than reasonable argumentation from you. Don't degrade yourself with these worthless fallacies and name calling.

 

If I am, I had no idea till now O.O

Once again, I'm the last to know. I guess you learn something new everyday.

 

*fallacies
-_-

 

This thread is really interesting. I will post my 2 cents.

Thinking that sexual orientation or gender roles may or not be conditioned by environment is for me irrelevant. If it is natural, there is nothing to be done about it (or without causing severe psychological problems, I do not know the extent of the "treatments"), and if it is related to your surroundings you probably developed it at a young age and thereby it is as difficult to change, and as violent to try to as if you were dealing with the natural case. You see, I cannot say for sure that I dislike men, but I am certain that I feel real, unconscious (if you will) attraction for females, that is my present reality. I cannot get excited in the slightest by men, maybe I feel admiration, but that is it.

As an user has said, even when he engaged in gay porn and recorded himself during masturbation, he immediately felt as if it was unnatural and part of the Coolidge Effect, not something deeper. Not something that made him really change his view of himself. Nor he had sex with other man. Even if we read about a case where the man or woman had sex with someone of the same sex after being exposed to porn, this is at most a temporary effect not comparable to sexual orientation and personal image.

I have met a handful of homosexual and bisexual people in my life. They all claim to having known their orientation for a long time. They all keep "deciding" in a sense to maintain that as it is and not to change it; well, they are not hurting anyone.

Not to sound offensive, but I can draw a parallelism between the point of view that homosexuality is a pure "deviation of modern society" to the thesis that orthodox communist parties until the 80's maintained in Cuba, China; the USSR during Stalin, Enver Hohxa's Albania, etc. A change in social relationships, censorship and attacks on bourgeois culture (modern culture) did not revert man to a "primordial state" as the Genesis describes. Even in earlier societies or in societies without big social structures you encounter many gender roles and as such, orientations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit).

So, do sexual orientations take a very long time to change and "purify" (taking the example of communist regimes), or are they natural, or are they statistically stable throughout all societies (like the prohibition of incest)? I recall my first paragraph: in any case, it is an act of violence. I must add that it goes well beyond that: it is an act of imposition of meanings towards a subject or whole group that is of no harm to you. we should be asking ourselves "if I am straight, bi, gay, etc. or I subscribe to an specific gender role, what is the problem?" If we think homosexuality (and other) are "proofs of degeneration", it would not be a bad idea to try to see it from another angle, is not it?

Greetings.

 

Well, at the inauguration of our literary circle, six academics, with six incommensurable paradigms in tow, fired of the most incoherent conversation imaginable.

We decided henceforth that each would take turns to chair the meeting, and bring the material of their choice for discussion. This should make things a little more manageable and civilized... you would think.

Anyway, things got a little sociological and political... something or other about 'the other'. My response was that 'the other' was a reflection of the creation of identity. If identity [politics] were abolished, then there would be no 'other'. We would recognize our common humanity! As you can imagine, I got a mixed response. Most threatened a chorus of 'kumbaiya', but one turned and savaged me with; 'So what of homosexuals, are they also non-other to you!'
Oh boy, she must have sniffed my conservative credentials.

 

Science simply saves appearances. It gives a theory on how things appear to be. Philosophy of science makes that much clear. Philosophy itself attempts to describe what things really are. Not being able to do this, we realize reality is unknowable conceptually. It is left for the poor poet to give us some glimpse of intimation of reality. This is all we really have... outside religion of course. And cyber-space......

 

You have Google at your fingertips, and therefore no excuse! Don't be lazy, and avail yourself of the most marvelous technology known to man.

And then we have Facebook. They finally managed to perfect the means of communication.... just when no-one had anything to communicate.

 

@Buzz Lightyear Your viewpoint is really intriguing. I have heard some philosophers (like Gilles Deleuze) that implied that when deprived of all the concepts and symbolism of language, all that is left, the "rest" is only difference, as even a paradoxical multiplicity of meanings that always lives behind concepts. So, it is not really unity (humanity as a whole) that emerges, but in fact it is what is destroyed. It is symbols that allow us to shape unities and to draw parallelisms, incomplete ones as the Real is always "one step forward".

Now, how this relates to homosexuality and ethics, I am only starting to think about. Why I maintain an attitude of distance and caution to any "finished" understanding on the matter, relying on some examples to "support" my doubts, has to be clear by now.

@aarondf I do not like to simplify my ideas as I find that they seem to erode when shortened. But in that regard, to simplify is also a form of art, to keep meaning and get rid of the excess, like getting rid of PMO, maybe?

The central point is that we appear not to have a clear answer about the development of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. (it might be natural, contextual, a combination of both), and it would be better to rely in other questions, like "what is wrong with different sexual orientations?", that way we might think of it as a mere product of modern society, a natural state of certain humans, a pure choice (conscious or unconscious?) or a product of an universal social constant (like the prohibition of incest), but what matters in the end is what our interaction with the issue will be (are we going to help homosexuals to "follow their heart", or are we going to change natural or social variables to adjust behavior?), and so, we focus on our own ideas, and our characterization of homosexuals change, which is for me, the real debate.