You'd be at least mostly wrong. It's a scientific fact that certain people respond to certain pheromones; that's not under conscious, or even subconscious, control.
Some men don't react to female pheromones at all. I'm probably one of them. That means that, genetically and/or biologically, I'm gay. Some men will react to both male and female pheromones. Those men are bi. Short of recombinant genetics, you can't change either of those facts.
Now, biological reaction doesn't necessarily mean someone can't "fall in love" with someone to whom they aren't physically attracted to; I'd bet that happens all the time. So, there's still some "leeway" in there depending on how you want to define "gay": physical attraction or mental.
But if you're talking strictly biometrics, people are born either gay, bi, or straight, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it. Yes, I'd say there is likely a percentage of "bi" folk who self-identify as one or the other for various reasons, but it's just plain incorrect to state that all people are bi. Fundamentally, we're not.
Are you trying to explain why I caught you humping the Statue of Liberty's leg? Because seriously now 1/2 brain excuse is going to convince me what you were doing was cool.
austin- im all for neurochemistry- but i think theres another level. i understand the impact of pheromonal cues on sexual behavior, but i dont believe theres -necessarily- an integral connection to the address of sexual stimuli. consider the gloryhole effect. anonymous bj- the guy will generally go all the way through with it, and only afterwards decide to be "grossed out" cuz it was a guy. now- there may not be whatever we as humans consider "love" (pheromonal and histocompatibility), but psychologically, there must be something that makes us be "grossed out" by homo/hetero relations respectively. im merely stating that most guys are open to the anonymous bj- and i believe that the right form and extent of encouragement can make the anonymous bj concept more nonymous(if you will).its all in the head. i never claimed that selective attraction doesnt exist, but that sexual relations arent so black and white/ are fluid in more people than not.
potvin- the adults are talking rn ;-), and i had breathed a little too much of the ny air... so the whole toga thing had me a little... uh... yeah.
thats true. i literally was just thinking this today, wut a coincidence. just cuz a girl likes to masturbate to a rubber dildo doesnt mean she's sexually attraced to rubber per se. nor does a guy who masturbates with a "fleshlight" is sexually aroused by rubber or plastic. it really is all in the head. take for example dogs who hump our legs or our pillows... would some straight ppl be genuinely disgusted by actually having sex with the same gender or did society make it "disgusting"? just because you are not sexually aroused by something or someone by its nature doesnt mean they cant provide you sexual pleasure. if society had never made same-gender sex disgusting, a straight guy sticking his dick in a tight manhole might just be as pleasurable as a tight pussy.
Mikey- I don't think anyone defines their sexuality by what *can* get them off; hell, there're robotic masturbators out there. Friction's friction.
What we're attracted to is different than what can get us off - and biochemistry plays a big role in that. So does the psychology of the individual.
Is the psychological factor far less rigid than most people pretend? Yes. One of my favorite quotes: "The line most people say they won't cross is usually something they've already done when they thought nobody was looking."
god damn i missed you guys. potvin. i justed laughed till i puked. and joey- i think you get my point. im not saying it just in terms of sex, either. ive thought a lot about this and i think this was more of a proof that "friends with benefits" can and should exist in whatever sex you find your friends. i like sex. i always want more sex. i wouldnt mind screwing some of my friends, even if i dont necessarily find them attractive. its sex. society has given different kinds of sex bad names. i guess im really trying to say that the titles gay, straight, or bi, in a psychological sense, really represent what you want to hold a relationship with, rather than what youll screw. to think otherwise is both arrogant and close-minded. im gonna write a new post with better ramblings...
@austin: our sexuality is defined by what THOUGHTS get us off. not really what material objects can get us off. when u fuck a girl do u think about the girl ur screwin, about the girl of ur dreams, or for the closet-cases the GUY of ur dreams? it really doesnt matter HOW or with wut u get off. its all about wuts runnin thru ur mind as u get off.
You'd be at least mostly wrong. It's a scientific fact that certain people respond to certain pheromones; that's not under conscious, or even subconscious, control.
ReplyDeleteSome men don't react to female pheromones at all. I'm probably one of them. That means that, genetically and/or biologically, I'm gay. Some men will react to both male and female pheromones. Those men are bi. Short of recombinant genetics, you can't change either of those facts.
Now, biological reaction doesn't necessarily mean someone can't "fall in love" with someone to whom they aren't physically attracted to; I'd bet that happens all the time. So, there's still some "leeway" in there depending on how you want to define "gay": physical attraction or mental.
But if you're talking strictly biometrics, people are born either gay, bi, or straight, and there's nothing anyone can do to change it. Yes, I'd say there is likely a percentage of "bi" folk who self-identify as one or the other for various reasons, but it's just plain incorrect to state that all people are bi. Fundamentally, we're not.
Are you trying to explain why I caught you humping the Statue of Liberty's leg? Because seriously now 1/2 brain excuse is going to convince me what you were doing was cool.
ReplyDeleteaustin- im all for neurochemistry- but i think theres another level. i understand the impact of pheromonal cues on sexual behavior, but i dont believe theres -necessarily- an integral connection to the address of sexual stimuli. consider the gloryhole effect. anonymous bj- the guy will generally go all the way through with it, and only afterwards decide to be "grossed out" cuz it was a guy. now- there may not be whatever we as humans consider "love" (pheromonal and histocompatibility), but psychologically, there must be something that makes us be "grossed out" by homo/hetero relations respectively. im merely stating that most guys are open to the anonymous bj- and i believe that the right form and extent of encouragement can make the anonymous bj concept more nonymous(if you will).its all in the head. i never claimed that selective attraction doesnt exist, but that sexual relations arent so black and white/ are fluid in more people than not.
ReplyDeletepotvin- the adults are talking rn ;-), and i had breathed a little too much of the ny air... so the whole toga thing had me a little... uh... yeah.
guys...
ReplyDeletesometimes a blow-job is just a blow-job.....
- cheers... david
haha- YES. i think david summed up my argument perfectly. thank you, david.
ReplyDeletethats true. i literally was just thinking this today, wut a coincidence. just cuz a girl likes to masturbate to a rubber dildo doesnt mean she's sexually attraced to rubber per se. nor does a guy who masturbates with a "fleshlight" is sexually aroused by rubber or plastic. it really is all in the head. take for example dogs who hump our legs or our pillows...
ReplyDeletewould some straight ppl be genuinely disgusted by actually having sex with the same gender or did society make it "disgusting"? just because you are not sexually aroused by something or someone by its nature doesnt mean they cant provide you sexual pleasure.
if society had never made same-gender sex disgusting, a straight guy sticking his dick in a tight manhole might just be as pleasurable as a tight pussy.
Mikey-
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone defines their sexuality by what *can* get them off; hell, there're robotic masturbators out there. Friction's friction.
What we're attracted to is different than what can get us off - and biochemistry plays a big role in that. So does the psychology of the individual.
Is the psychological factor far less rigid than most people pretend? Yes. One of my favorite quotes: "The line most people say they won't cross is usually something they've already done when they thought nobody was looking."
I think Mel Gibson summed it up best when he said, "You should just fucking smile and blow me, ‘cause I deserve it!”
ReplyDeletegod damn i missed you guys. potvin. i justed laughed till i puked. and joey- i think you get my point. im not saying it just in terms of sex, either. ive thought a lot about this and i think this was more of a proof that "friends with benefits" can and should exist in whatever sex you find your friends. i like sex. i always want more sex. i wouldnt mind screwing some of my friends, even if i dont necessarily find them attractive. its sex. society has given different kinds of sex bad names. i guess im really trying to say that the titles gay, straight, or bi, in a psychological sense, really represent what you want to hold a relationship with, rather than what youll screw. to think otherwise is both arrogant and close-minded. im gonna write a new post with better ramblings...
ReplyDeleteBTW just in case anyone wants to order one like I did. http://thankgodimfamous.com/fashion/smileandblow/
ReplyDelete@austin: our sexuality is defined by what THOUGHTS get us off. not really what material objects can get us off. when u fuck a girl do u think about the girl ur screwin, about the girl of ur dreams, or for the closet-cases the GUY of ur dreams? it really doesnt matter HOW or with wut u get off. its all about wuts runnin thru ur mind as u get off.
ReplyDeletepotvin-if youre wearing that shirt you'll get raped by a pack of n[expletive deleted]rs, you pig in heat. ;-)
ReplyDelete