Do you expect your wife to submit to you?

Originally posted by redbadger
I think u and Spalf should get a room

Easy there big fellow, I have certain moral imperatives which prevent me, Spalf has none, its a risky proposition, I am not sure I'd be able to convert him before he gets frisky! 😵

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]So your biological make up is preventing you from engaging in all kinds of sexual acts. Is that really what you are saying?

yes.

It is in fact demonstrably false. Prisoners who are incarcerated and who may have been heterosexual their entire life may be coerced to engage in homosexual acts not by some biological causation but by mere e ...[text shortened]... ment of their amygdala's. they still receive prison sentences regardless if its a genetic issue.

Predisposition is not the same as a causation. Please learn what this means.

heterosexuals who deny being homosexual or bisexual -- are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Why does there genetic predisposition not prevent this? because its scientifically and philosophically nonsense.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Predisposition is not the same as a causation. Please learn what this means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Hard to argue against empirical evidence, isn't it.

could you highlight the part that says heterosexual men become homosexual in prison (which is what your argument was). it appears the article does not support your views.

as far as i can see, the page supports my experience from work.


oh and i didnt mention predisposition. then men who are sexually aroused by other men in a prison environment, usually have a history of homosexual behaviour, regardless if they claim to be straight.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Predisposition is not the same as a causation. Please learn what this means.

heterosexuals who deny being homosexual or bisexual -- are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Why does there genetic predisposition not prevent this? because its scientifically and philosophically nonsense.

you dodged the question about paedophilia. do you feel that we could all be sexually aroused by children if we 'exercised our free will' and decided to.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you dodged the question about paedophilia. do you feel that we could all be sexually aroused by children if we 'exercised our free will' and decided to.

I don't know why you insist on creating straw-men arguments. I have not stated that sexual arousal has anything to do with whether someone engages in a sexual act or not. I am pretty sure that many prostitutes feel no compulsion to have sex with many of their clients and yet they do so for expediencies sake. Are you willing to deny the fact? Pity that for your argument though, perhaps if you refrained from trying to ascribe values to those who you are debating with and proceeding to build arguments on those projected values, you may do better. I am under no duress to answer any of your straw-men arguments.

As I have stated here and elsewhere genetic predisposition is meaningless, all that matters is acts. Humans have the capacity for free will and are responsible for their own actions. The only real determining factor of whether someone engages in a (consensual) sexual act is a moral one.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
could you highlight the part that says heterosexual men become homosexual in prison (which is what your argument was). it appears the article does not support your views.

as far as i can see, the page supports my experience from work.


oh and i didnt mention predisposition. then men who are sexually aroused by other men in a prison environment, usually have a history of homosexual behaviour, regardless if they claim to be straight.

I have highlighted the text which refutes your ludicrous claims in the edited version above. Here it is again.

heterosexuals who deny being homosexual or bisexual -- are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have highlighted the text which refutes your ludicrous claims in the edited version above. Here it is again.

heterosexuals who deny being homosexual or bisexual -- are known to sometimes begin sexual relations with each other when confined together for long periods of time. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

firstly the section you quoted from has no citation. there goes your empirical evidence out of the window.

secondly did you bother to read the whole paragraph. it states these people do not identify themselves as homosexual!! as i have pointed out several times there are a lot of men in prison (and out) who deny they are homosexual, a look at their files usually says otherwise.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
firstly the section you quoted from has no citation. there goes your empirical evidence out of the window.

secondly did you bother to read the whole paragraph. it states these people do not identify [b]themselves as homosexual!! as i have pointed out several times there are a lot of men in prison (and out) who deny they are homosexual, a look at their files usually says otherwise.[/b]

oh right, they were in denial, gotcha! all it took was a prison cell to bring them out of the closet! a rather strange turn of affairs that, go into a closet straight and come out a homosexual, kind of like Mr. Ben who used to try on different costumes. I bet he was in denial too. Naturally their long period of confinement had nothing to do with their coming out, it was those pesky genes. You sound like a Georgian magistrate complaining about a criminal class that has criminality bred into their genetics. Weird.

The fact that there is no citations does not negate the efficacy of the statement, if its unfounded then it will be removed.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh right, they were in denial, gotcha! all it took was a prison cell to bring them out! The fact that there is no citations does not negate the efficacy of the statement, its its unfounded then it will be removed.

i didnt actually say they were in denial. my experience is that most know that they are homosexual (or bisexual) but as admitting to being a homosexual in prison can lead to violence and can also follow a prisoner back into the outside world, usually an environment where homosexuality is not acceptable. but there are definitely some who are in denial, me experience is that these usually have borderline iq's mixed with a personality disorder.



The fact that there is no citations does not negate the efficacy of the statement

haha!!!! so you dont care if its true, you just care about how effective it is as a statement? classic robbie.

its its unfounded then it will be removed.

hahaaa. another !!!!! all things written in wikpedia are true until they are removed!!!!!!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh right, they were in denial, gotcha! all it took was a prison cell to bring them out of the closet! a rather strange turn of affairs that, go into a closet straight and come out a homosexual, kind of like Mr. Ben who used to try on different costumes. I bet he was in denial too. Naturally their long period of confinement had nothing to do with th ...[text shortened]... tations does not negate the efficacy of the statement, if its unfounded then it will be removed.

any thoughts on paedophilia yet robbie? could you get aroused by a child if you chose to?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i didnt actually say they were in denial. my experience is that most know that they are homosexual (or bisexual) but as admitting to being a homosexual in prison can lead to violence and can also follow a prisoner back into the outside world, usually an environment where homosexuality is not acceptable. but there are definitely some who are in denial, m ...[text shortened]... b]

hahaaa. another !!!!! all things written in wikpedia are true until they are removed!!!!!!

ah right, your experience, hard to refute anecdotal evidence, isn't it. How convenient for you. Kind of like having a religious experience, no one can corroborate it one way or the other.

I am sure I can find other evidence if I really tried but we both know that environment plays a huge part in these individuals engagement in certain sexual acts, whereas their genetic predisposition is essentially meaningless.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
any thoughts on paedophilia yet robbie? could you get aroused by a child if you chose to?

This is a straw man argument, arousal has practically no bearing on a humans capacity to engage in sexual acts. I have already cited the example of prostitutes who engage with people to whom they have no affinity, why you keep harping on with it I cannot say. You think failing once would be enough for you. Apparently not.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ah right, your experience, hard to refute anecdotal evidence, isn't it. How convenient for you. Kind of like having a religious experience, no one can corroborate it one way or the other.

I am sure I can find other evidence if I really tried but we both know that environment plays a huge part in these individuals engagement in certain sexual acts, whereas there genetic predisposition is essentially meaningless.

im confused robbie. you initially claimed it was an individuals free will that enabled them to decide what sexual acts the commit.

you now appear to be saying that is peoples environment? so can i choose to be gay, or do i need to be in a specific environment first?

as for the anecdotal evidence, you are correct. my stories from work are intended to be nothing more than anecdotal. it would be odd of me not to mention in a discussion about prison and sexual behaviour. that i work in a prison environment and deal mainly with sexual offenders, which includes having to read through each of their case histories, risk behaviours and daily records.

of course it suits your argument much better to assume i am lying.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is a straw man argument, arousal has practically no bearing on a humans capacity to engage in sexual acts. I have already cited the example of prostitutes who engage with people to whom they have no affinity, why you keep harping on with it I cannot say. You think failing once would be enough for you. Apparently not.

you said that men in prison change sexually because of their environment.....are these men aroused by men or not?

if we change the environment so the prisoners are surrounded by children will the men try to have sex with the children?.....are these men aroused by the children or not?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you said that men in prison change sexually because of their environment.....are these men aroused by men or not?

if we change the environment so the prisoners are surrounded by children will the men try to have sex with the children?.....are these men aroused by the children or not?

are they aroused? probably not, just expediencies sake. whether they try anything with children remains to be seen, they may have some moral misgivings which prevents them, certainly their genetics has nothing to do with it. You fail again, try a different variation, that ones busted.