Belami interview insulting to the gay consumer

[MercuryJones]

So I'm gay, and I identify as gay: If I don't find another man attractive, does that make me still gay?

So if you are straight, and don't find every women sexually desirable, does that make you straight?

People are gay if their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex.

I didn't stiplate that stipulation that it be to every individual member of the same sex.

 

[MercuryJones]

Okay. So then that leaves behavior to indicate the remaining part of 'orientation'.

No, the definition is unchanged: People are gay if their sexual orientation is to members of the same sex.

There is no stipulation that it be every single member of the same sex.

 

[MercuryJones]

you say sexual orientation is ONLY based off the gender you sexually desire--but not rigidly everyone who is a specific gender.

Correct. You don't need to be sexually attracted to every single man to be gay.

Do you have a question about that?

You say that behavior is irrelevant to a persons identity: I disagree. You are what you do, its related to whom you are. You didn't answer the question: if you continuously lie, does that make you a compulsive liar?

I say things are the definition they fit.

A liar is someone who lies.

A homosexual is a person sexually attracted to the same sex.

The former is a definition based on behavior, the latter on orientation. Those are the conventional definitions.

 

[bankside]

I agree that sexual orientation perception may differ from behaiour, but it shouldn't. Sexual orientation should be evidenced by behaviour. If self perception doesnt match up with that, it should be called "sexual orientation dysmorphic disorder" or something.

Sexual orientation and sexual behaviour are not "mix 'n' match."

 

[MercuryJones]

So a homosexual who lies about his 'orientation' is a liar...

A person of any orientation who lies about it is lying.

 

[MercuryJones]

okay. so you concede those men who lie about gay-for-pay are liars. lol!

I concede that some people may lie about being straight, some may lie about being gay, and people in general may sometimes lie about a lot of things.

 

[hotatlboi]

okay so.... gay-for-pay is typically a lie. A FANTASY. -- from someone who emphasized this on the board earlier.

Why do you think it has to be a lie?

I'm gay. If the price was right I would be capable of fucking a woman though. If I was offered $1000 to fuck a woman (not in porn, I wouldn't do that, but some people wouldn't care) I would probably do it.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't be gay.

 

[MercuryJones]

okay so.... gay-for-pay is typically a lie. A FANTASY. -- from someone who emphasized this on the board earlier.

I don't know which ones are lying or not, or about what. Neither do you.

WHERE IS THE PROOF THEY ARE HETERO, IF YOU CANNOT TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT?

The proof of anyone's orientation is in his or her own head. Fortunately, porn is just entertainment so the truth about anyone's orientation isn't really very important.

 

[Girlesque]

Pittguy, you are not here to have a free exchange of ideas. You are here to proselytize. Your message is this. No erection can be achieved except through sexual attraction.

You tried to expound on your message by comparing male sexuality to female sexuality, which you know nothing about. In doing so you painted a grotesque picture of womanhood. The women in your head are not different but equal to men. They are inferior. In your depiction of female sexuality, sex for women, unlike men, and like animals, is a purely physical act with no basis in the intelligence, has nothing to do with emotions and attraction. Which, you explained, is why women can coldly use sex as a tool to dig for gold, as if no man has ever used sex to barter for financial gain and/or social mobility.

You tried to deny the fact that a woman's body is not a passive receptacle, that a woman, displays physical responses when sexually aroused, and also when she's not sexually aroused, and that sex for an unaroused woman is painful. When you couldn't deny stark facts anymore, you trivialized them. You trivialized women's pain. When I corrected your wrong statements, you made a personal attack of my body and insinuated, by using the Murdoch news empire's favorite method of framing statements as questions, that I have a tight vagina. As if vaginal tightness is a deformity. Or perhaps that is your clumsy way of calling me a derogatory term without breaching JUB's Code of Conduct. Then you accused me of being prejudiced against men, then tried to drive me out, offering no reason for your attempted ousting other than my gender.

Zealots attack knowledge, logic and reason, who are their enemies. Zealots do not allow viewpoints and experiences outside of their own understanding. There is only one truth. Theirs. They look for data and information--often not understanding them (for a closed mind cannot grow and lacks the flexibility to wrap around foreign thoughts and concepts), often misinterpreting them--to bend and twist to fit their agenda. For zealots there is no experience too rare that can’t be used to generalize an entire group. No studies too flawed that can’t be cited again and again. And things that they can’t manipulate, they just flat out ignore.

I’m not interested in communicating with zealots. Discussions with proselytizers are intellectual cul-de-sacs that go nowhere.

 

[Girlesque]

For those of you who are interested, the study, Sexual arousal patterns of bisexual man, so dear to Pittguy’s heart is not exactly a milestone in the field of human sexuality. The methodology used by Dr. J. Michael Bailey is seriously flawed and he manipulated the data, such as it was, that he gathered.

From Dr. Bailey’s Wikipedia page:

The study received wide attention after a New York Times piece on the study.

The article and study were criticized by gay and bisexual groups and by FAIR. Critics argued the sample size was relatively small, consisting of one hundred (100) men. Also, all of these subjects were "self-selected", from ads placed in gay and "alternative" publications. Then the researchers had to disregard results of thirty-five percent (35%) of this population, as non-responders.

The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce (the oldest LGBT rights group in the US) published a critique of the New York Times article, Straight, Gay, Or Lying?, and Dr. Bailey’s study, which can be read here (PDF file).

Of particular pertinence to this thread is this statement:

Modern school of thought is that sexual orientation is defined by a combination of cognitive and physical responses, not just by whether one’s genitals respond a certain way to pornography. The overarching theme of the article, however, is to accept the study’s hypothesis that “arousal is orientation.”

That wouldn’t be the first or the last time that the august Dr. Bailey and his work has come under criticism.

But first, a little about Dr. Bailey. He’s a psychology professor who studies male homosexuality. He’s heterosexual, and has two children. I found out about his sexuality in an interview conducted by a Steve Sailer, who claimed Dr. Bailey as a friend. Sailer is a columinst for VDare.com, a white supremacist website (VDare.com was recently in the news as Mint.com, a popular personal finance website, cited content from it). Sailer is also the founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute, a pro-eugenics group.

Dr. Bailey is on HBI’s email discussion list. He said of his assciociation with the group:

I find some postings on the list fascinating and useful, and others disagreeable for various reasons. I do not need to agree with everything people say in order to associate with them.

Okay. If you say so, Doctor. But wait. What about this abstract from a paper you wrote with a lawyer?

As we learn more about the causes of sexual orientation, the likelihood increases that parents will one day be able to select the orientation of their children. This possibility (at least that of selecting for heterosexuality) has generated a great deal of concern among supporters of homosexual rights, with such selection being widely condemned as harmful and morally repugnant. Notwithstanding this widespread condemnation, and even assuming, as we do, that homosexuality is entirely acceptable morally, allowing parents, by means morally unproblematic in themselves, to select for heterosexuality would be morally acceptable. This is because allowing parents to select their children's sexual orientation would further parent's freedom to raise the sort of children they wish to raise and because selection for heterosexuality may benefit parents and children and is unlikely to cause significant harm.

Whatever issues Dr. Bailey has with HBI, selective procreation, the central tenet of eugenics, is certainly not one of them.

A couple more gems from the psychology professor.

From The Man Who Would Be Queen, Dr. Bailey’s book on transsexualism:

The standard lecture is that sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender role behavior are separate, independent psychological traits; a feminine man is as likely to be straight as gay. But the standard lecture is wrong. It was written with good, but mistaken, intentions: to save gay men from the stigma of femininity. The problem is that most gay men are feminine, or at least they are feminine in certain ways.

From Dr. Bailey’s interview with Steven Sailer, part of Dr. Bailey’s explanation of his interest in studying male homosexuality:

First, I found working with gay people a lot more fun and interesting than working with crazy people.

Yeah, I think I’ll disregard Dr. Bailey and his little study. Dr. Bailey is not some trailblazing iconoclast revolutionizing the field of human sexuality. He is a propagandist who stomps on good, solid, established science and research to advance his dangerously skewed views on homosexuality.

 

[GaGaloo]

Why does it matter? As long as they're hot it gets the job done.

 

[MercuryJones]

We are left with behaviors the could indicate preference.

But behaviors, it is already established, do not always reflect preference.

In the end, you're not going to really know someone else's orientation. You can believe them or make your own guess , but you won't know.

 

[MercuryJones]

IT went from you being completely adamant they were ALL straight to.... okay, yes, SOME lie.

I don't believe I ever said they're all straight, because I never thought that. Do yup have a quote of me saying they're all straight?

 

[MercuryJones]

So you lied. Thanks.

Here's me on p2 of this thread:

I have no doubt that there are men in porn who lie about their orientation.

 

[introv3rt]

How can you quote someone saying that "some are gay and some aren't" and claim that they are saying that all of them are straight? That makes no sense.

What he's saying is not that all the "gay-for-pay" people are straight, but that he refuses to say that they are all categorically gay, because we have no way of knowing.

The comparison to a criminal isn't right. The act of stealing something, whether you do it for money or because you want to, makes you a criminal. The act of putting your dick in someone's mouth/ass/whatever does not make you gay, being gay has to do with your orientation, like MercuryJones has said a dozen times. A guy can be gay without even having had sex, and a guy can have sex with a dude (say, for money, like some porn actors) without being gay. It's about who you are attracted to, not who you happen to have sex with for whatever reason.

Just like a gay man who has been in a relationship with a woman for a long time due to social pressure or whatever is still gay if he feels that he is mainly/only attracted to guys, a straight guy who needs money and feels pressure to get it and turns to gay porn simply because he will get paid, is still straight. Blindfold some guy and have someone suck his dick off, and he will most likely get hard whether it's a girl or guy doing the sucking, as the body responds to physical stimuli and it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with who you are attracted to. Hell, imagining someone you are attracted to is also a powerful thing. Combine the two, and your whole "if you stay hard during a gay porn shoot, then you must be gay!" fails. Oh, and have you watched "behind the scenes"-shots for some gay porn? The actors go from hard to soft to hard to soft a lot, and often watch straight porn and jerk off in between shoots.

But of course there are gay porn actors out there who claim to be straight, but are closeted. Doesn't mean they all are, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they have sex with guys in the porn for money, it has something to do with the fact that they are attracted to guys.

 

[Piquechampion]

How can you quote someone saying that "some are gay and some aren't" and claim that they are saying that all of them are straight? That makes no sense.

What he's saying is not that all the "gay-for-pay" people are straight, but that he refuses to say that they are all categorically gay, because we have no way of knowing.

The comparison to a criminal isn't right. The act of stealing something, whether you do it for money or because you want to, makes you a criminal. The act of putting your dick in someone's mouth/ass/whatever does not make you gay, being gay has to do with your orientation, like MercuryJones has said a dozen times. A guy can be gay without even having had sex, and a guy can have sex with a dude (say, for money, like some porn actors) without being gay. It's about who you are attracted to, not who you happen to have sex with for whatever reason.

Just like a gay man who has been in a relationship with a woman for a long time due to social pressure or whatever is still gay if he feels that he is mainly/only attracted to guys, a straight guy who needs money and feels pressure to get it and turns to gay porn simply because he will get paid, is still straight. Blindfold some guy and have someone suck his dick off, and he will most likely get hard whether it's a girl or guy doing the sucking, as the body responds to physical stimuli and it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with who you are attracted to. Hell, imagining someone you are attracted to is also a powerful thing. Combine the two, and your whole "if you stay hard during a gay porn shoot, then you must be gay!" fails. Oh, and have you watched "behind the scenes"-shots for some gay porn? The actors go from hard to soft to hard to soft a lot, and often watch straight porn and jerk off in between shoots.

But of course there are gay porn actors out there who claim to be straight, but are closeted. Doesn't mean they all are, and it has nothing to do with the fact that he has sex with the guys in the porn, it has something to do with the fact that they are attracted to guys.

Makes you a men who has sex with other men = homosexual

 

[introv3rt]

No, not necessarily. Having sex with men because you are attracted to them or because you enjoy it on a level that has nothing to do with "this will pay my rent", on the other hand… That might make you a homosexual (or bisexual).

 

[Piquechampion]

^ Whether you are a man who have sex with other men, because you like it or because there was some money involved (in which case that act is called prostitution.... but I digress). The act in itself is called homosexuality.

 

[introv3rt]

No. The most common definition of homosexuality states that it is an orientation. Not an act. It might be homosexual behaviour, but behaviour does not always reflect preference, like MercuryJones said. (Silly example-time: I get up ridiculously early in the morning because I am being paid to do so. Would I do so if I weren't getting paid? No. Do I enjoy it? No. Do I function even though I would preferably be asleep in bed? Yes.)

Do you think people can be homosexual while being a virgin? They haven't performed the act of having sex with other men, but they can still be attracted to men and be homosexuals.

 

[MercuryJones]

Frankly- I'm sick of gays for pay...we're taking our money and giving it to men who are just using us...

Well, gays in porn are using us too. Everyone in porn is using us - and we're using them too.

gay company's and patrons should try to financially improve gay men's lives....

Through porn? I think there are a lot of great ways to improve other LGB lives through charitable giving. Porn is just a commodity.