Originally posted by whiteroseThat's a good question. I don't know the answer either. I don't think anyone does. Even today we find out all of the time about "married" guys getting caught in bed with, or admitting to having sex with other men. So to try and figure out how many men (or women) in the past had sex exclusively with their own gender... Hell I don't know.
There is a difference between sleeping with men and ONLY sleeping with men. Sure, in every culture there are lots of people who experiment with the same sex(or would like to), but how many Romans refused entirely to sleep with women? Is this a higher or lower percentage than in the big cities of the western world today? We will porbably never know, but I think it is certainly possible that the modern percentage is higher.
Originally posted by whiteroseSleeping? Why do you feel it necessary to resort to a euphemism when you are talking about sodomy?
There is a difference between sleeping with men and ONLY sleeping with men. Sure, in every culture there are lots of people who experiment with the same sex(or would like to), but how many Romans refused entirely to sleep with women? Is this a higher or lower percentage than in the big cities of the western world today? We will porbably never know, but I think it is certainly possible that the modern percentage is higher.
Originally posted by whiteroseThe old homosexual or bisexual debate. I don't know what others think of it, but I think bisexual is just another way of saying "gay also".
There is a difference between sleeping with men and ONLY sleeping with men. Sure, in every culture there are lots of people who experiment with the same sex(or would like to), but how many Romans refused entirely to sleep with women? Is this a higher or lower percentage than in the big cities of the western world today? We will porbably never know, but I think it is certainly possible that the modern percentage is higher.
If you're a man, you either like the ween or you don't. What else you like doesn't matter. You like ween. You're gay. 'Nuff said.
Originally posted by MerkI disagree. I think that all people are curious about both sexes. Most western men will probably vehemently disagree, but of course they were raised in a culture where male homosexuality is unacceptable. I mean look at the Romans. Pretty much all of the soldiers were having sex with men, and presumably women as well or they would have died out fairly quickly. People of all cultures like to experiment, and find sexual satisfation in a variety of ways. What I find interesting is the number of people in western society today who only practice homoexuality. Is this typical, or is the percentage raised due to current overpoplation issues? There is no way to know for sure, but it is an interesting possibility.
The old homosexual or bisexual debate. I don't know what others think of it, but I think bisexual is just another way of saying "gay also".
If you're a man, you either like the ween or you don't. What else you like doesn't matter. You like ween. You're gay. 'Nuff said.
Originally posted by whiteroseJust that I think it preferable to be specific since you are talking about a rather disgusting perversion when one considers the normal function of the depository in question.
sleeping with, nailing, shagging, having sex with, sodomizing, whatever...
Why do you care which words I use?
Originally posted by scipio2Many people, both homosexual and heterosexual, do not find it disgusting. You should try it sometime, you might like it 🙂
Just that I think it preferable to be specific since you are talking about a rather disgusting perversion when one considers the normal function of the depository in question.
Originally posted by uzlessNo. I mean I don't know how many straight men also sleep with men and live in denial. And I don't know how many gay men only sleep with men. I know of no stats for that sort of thing. And even if polls are taken people, especially men, would simply lie.
You don't know, but you're sure it's not partly for population control...
Originally posted by uzlessThat is utter rubbish. I suggest you read a little into evolution if you are going to make claims like that. I would recommend starting with [i]the selfish gene.
This has been linked to the notion that "being gay" is linked to natural population control. The idea states that somehow, "nature" is able to tell how many kids a mother has had and somehow decides that she is producing too many offspring that can ideally be raised given food/shelter/water suppplies etc.
In other words, if you're gay, you won't produce a ...[text shortened]... s and thereby reduce the strain on population growth and hence lower resource consumption.
I wouldn't be so sure Will: the Selfish Gene viewpoint could well be in support of this idea, since genes are not just the makeup of an individual but are also shared by family, tribe, society and species.
So a limit on reproduction within a group might well benefit that group as a whole and perpetuate some genetic tendency for a certain percentage of the population to be homosexuality.
I had a theory once, I never got to test it though. It asked the question if homosexuality could be linked to male dominance in the household. For example ,in a pride of lions only the dominant male fully matures. The same for diffrent primates. I thought about this when I thought about a friend of mine that has three gay brothers. They have a macho father and my friend who left home while in high school is strait. He tried to explain how his brothers are diffrent kinds of gay. Like one just has intercourse indiscrimanatly, and is in the drug culture. One is a "fem" (his discription) a stereotypical hollywood gay. The other is a straight looking and acting guy who likes men? Back to the theory, could testorne levels be affcted and have an affect on a persons sexuality, based on testosterone levels of other males in the area?