Justice44 Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 Many believe that the alleged notion that gay men have higher sex drive and desire for more multiple than another sexual orientation proves that men desire promiscuity than women. What this assertion ignores is the fact that homosexual sex does not produce children. The theory defines gay promiscuity from a theory of reproduction which is directed at straight men. Gay men are not spreading their seed in order to spread their genes because gay men are incapable of procreation. It subtly indicates that homosexual males are unintended mutation rather than a deliberate creation. In other words, the sexual orientation of gay men is a genetic accident but what is not a genetic accident is their desire to have sex with hundreds of partners. Many of these same opponents believe that homosexuality has a genetic justification. Thus, they are presenting conflicting theories. I do not believe that these types of theories as proof of men desiring to spread their seed are either homophobic or heterosexist. They are simply trying to find a reason to justify their perception of straight males wanting more sexual partners than straight women. Therefore, people should refrain from using the alleged higher rates of sexual variety in the gay community in order to explain the alleged sexual desires associated with straight men. In order to encourage discussion, answer the following questions; 1. Can we attribute another cause to gay men having higher sex drives and having more partners? 2. Does homosexual sex clearly prove that sexuality is beyond procreative purposes? 3. Why would someone use the alleged promiscuity of gay males as evidence of men wanting to spread their seed and carry on their genes when gay men are unable to produce children?
Author Justice44 Posted June 25, 2010 Author Posted June 25, 2010 Even though nature has clearly expressed it does not want homosexuals to procreate with one another, we continue to associate promiscuity, regardless of sexual orientation, with a biological reproductive strategy for survival. It is funny how other instinctual urges do not primarily represent a strategy for survival. Having an instinctual urge to enjoy food does not ALWAYS mean you are craving food based on need. Humans are capable of consciously desiring food for simply pleasure. The lust for food could be for either starvation or gluttony. Unlike those who have high sex drives, we do not seem to link those who have high food drives automatically with a survival instinct. I’m not attempting to claim that the desire for food is the same as the desire for sex. Many critics and even supporters of sexual variety contend this. I hate to say this but I find it very insulting. There are vastly more distinctions than similarities between sexual desire and desire for food.
ADF Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 Sex advice columnist Dan Savage said it best. Think of some of the wild sexual antics many gay men enjoy--e.g group sex, anonymous sex, orgies, etc. They don't enjoy these things because they're GAY men. They enjoy them because they're gay MEN. Straight men would, if they could, but they can't, 'cause women won't. Unlike gay men, straight men have a natural, external force limiting how crazy they can get sexually. It's called "women." That's it, in a nutshell.
somedude81 Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 ADF pretty much said it. The only thing holding straight men from doing what they want is women. If women are the bottleneck, then it's easy to see that when that bottleneck is removed (by them not being needed), that men will run amok.
Feelin Frisky Posted June 25, 2010 Posted June 25, 2010 I don't know how to think or feel gay. Once again this is one of those attempts at universal assignments of traits to an entire demographic when in fact the world is made not of "sames" (and errors therein), it is made up of "uniques" all of whom have differing pasts, looks, emphases et al. If you've seen the coming attraction for "The Real L Word", a new show on Showtime detailing the real lives of about 10 lesbians, one of them says of women and gay sex thereby "for every one that says no, there's ten who'll say yes", if that's anywhere near true then the bit about the dominance in numbers of men being gay is suspect. Whichever the agenda, homosexuality seems to have fascinations to these people that I can't conceive of because I'm not one of them. Because culturally women don't raise an eyebrow when they dance with each other or stroke another's hair etc whereas such things would silence a wedding reception if two guys did it, it's hard to make any universal conclusions--in fact its a fool's game. People are who they are--some monogamously gay, others driven by strong libido and ability to perform who want sexual indulgement w/o love and attachment. It's just how it is and that's OK with me. Life seems to be more complicated for us straight people--but I often fatasize about being able to have a harem and lots of pretty honeys to indulge me willy nilly. But IRL, Im a bit of a prude and might be turned off by a crowd giving me the Sultan treament.
Recommended Posts