This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Doesn't your view have a basic chicken and egg problem?
If being gay requires sexual experiences with another man to solidify, then wouldn't there have to be some first gay man who has sex with a handful of boys? In which case, what man seduced the first gay man and made him gay?
Also, if I understand you correctly, you seem to believe people can be "sexually confused" as youths, and then if a "sexually confused" guy has sex with another guy it might solidify their sexuality and make them gay. But, doesn't that make what you're calling "sexual confusion" basically the same thing as "bisexuality" or "gay" with extra steps? Why do "sexually confused" guys want to have sex with men in the first place, prior to the experience that solidifies their orientation?
Do you also believe that people aren't straight if they don't learn it from society, and from experiences in their youth?
That seems simplistic. Even if it was 100% of cases, when my contention is something closer to 95-99%. But even if 100% there's no reason there shouldn't have been many cases of sadistic rape on conquered populations where the rapist gets no particular satisfaction from the fact the hole he's fucking belongs to a man. The point is its a hole, and its causing pain to the enemy.
My contention would be they have no idea. Their hormones have them fully confused about everything, and an older man, knowing these signs of vulnerability swoops in to take advantage. Its similar to the older guys who constantly dip into high schools to date goth girls (or whatever is the vogue thing now) and those girls disproportionately then end up having confused sexual futures. Its the old stripper pole trope.
I highly doubt such a thesis. Both sexes are capable of euphoric orgasm from PIV sex, which results in babies, the purpose of humanity is to do that. Such a thing strongly selects against the "indoctrinated into heterosexuality" thesis.
Personally, I like the gay germ hypothesis. (The hypothesis that being gay is caused by infection with a particular pathogen.)
I'm not sure I believe either the gay germ hypothesis or your "not born this way" hypothesis, but of the two, I feel like the former has fewer holes in it. It explains the lack of heritability equally well, but without the leaps of logic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I do remember a comedy skit audio where the premise was that one caveman was curious about butt stuff...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link