Can a blind man be gay ?

[Kurn]

I'm no neurologist and the field changes rapidly these days, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are 'levels of blindness.'

 

[M4P]

No, visually impaired I think is better. I have known blind people and deaf people and others who are definitely NOT handicapped, except in the view of others.

In the post I quoted the term "crippled" was used

 

[JackFTwist]

amazing how there are so many people who are clueless on that nature of sexuality

 

[nastyfab]

we shouldn't all attack Comrad for his question regardless of how "stupid" it might sound. What seems obvious to most of us might not be to others. Moreover, there is a certain validity to his inquiry and even though I personally believe that blindness and sexual orientation are not mutually exclusive, it is a topic that could be worth exploring especially from a social conditioning view point.

 

[JackFTwist]

the rationale for the absurd is always a fun proposition, equally shallow, but fun


we have a lot of material that needs to be unpacked by clincial psychologists, nothing else

 

[gewhite3]

This gets my vote for stupidest thread............DUHHHHH!!!!!

Anyone can be gay or straight, regardless of any physical limitations or otherwise. Get a life!

 

[HartfordGuy]

As you grow up and gain more experience you'll realize being gay is more than just sex

BTW - the appropriate term in handicapped

Sorry, but "Handicapped" is politically incorrect as well.

The correct term is : "Person with Disability".

 

[Kiwiguy]

I was blind and found out I was gay in my teenage years.

 

[Zeremonie]

this is has got to be - hands down - one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long long time in HT. The 2 you tube vids are total riot!!

It's a great question, and seriously when I read the question all I think about is that you'd have to learn about sexuality through the other senses - touch and smell and hearing - and wouldn't that be fun if we all learned it that way!

 

[Kurn]

amazing how there are so many people who are clueless on that nature of sexuality

Actually Jack, I've never ceased to have times when I find myself turning over different aspects of our erotic natures. Cluelessness with respect to sexuality is a constant presence.

People who live in Gayburgs as well as those who live in Closet City or the on the Rolling Plains all have important things to discover that our busy lives pass without noticing.

 

[yuty]

Can a crippled man be gay? I mean, since the plumbing doesn't work down there, how can he know that sex with men feels good?

As you grow up and gain more experience you'll realize being gay is more than just sex

BTW - the appropriate term in handicapped

We seriously need a sarcasm smilie....

 

[JackFTwist]

this is has got to be - hands down - one of the funniest threads I've seen in a long long time in HT. The 2 you tube vids are total riot!!

It's a great question, and seriously when I read the question all I think about is that you'd have to learn about sexuality through the other senses - touch and smell and hearing - and wouldn't that be fun if we all learned it that way!

it is a dumb ass question, I'm not even sorry to disagree, I will sit back and wait to be banned. The very premise in which the question was posed and the surrounding comments points to a view of sexuality that astounds for its lack of understanding.

You forgot the sense of taste - which would add to the learning experience...

sexuality is from within, it is inate, it is not determined by the senses - a person with no senses (I am not referring to some of our posters ) still possesses sexuality and an orientation -

 

[Kurn]

Jack, I understand you but this is a highly technical question and most people would be surprised at the controversies cognitive scientists go through with this.

Your stated assumptions are the basis of a lot of speculation and research stemming from observations that "it's not so simple."

However, in many senses, of course, your viewpoint isn't "wrong."

 

[james1200]

it is a dumb ass question, I'm not even sorry to disagree, I will sit back and wait to be banned. The very premise in which the question was posed and the surrounding comments points to a view of sexuality that astounds for its lack of understanding.

You forgot the sense of taste - which would add to the learning experience...

sexuality is from within, it is inate, it is not determined by the senses - a person with no senses (I am not referring to some of our posters ) still possesses sexuality and an orientation -

so if someone is born blind and deaf, can they be gay? can they tell they like cock by touching it? what if they're touching a flag pole by mistake...would they still get aroused? why am i participating in the stupidest thread ever?

 

[james1200]

if brad pitt had amnesia could i convince him he was gay? how would he know he was straight? what if i poked his eye out and he had amnesia...would he suck me off then??

 

[backpacker]

Why would it be upsetting? It couldn't be more upsetting than being an idiot and gay.

My favorite quote of this thread. I was immediately lmao when I read it.

 

[dr_beat]

Oh, I love this place! Everytime I think "Maybe humanity is not as lost as I think", someone on here posts something like this.

To top it off, we're know fighting over what term to call the "blind/visually impared/disabled/handicapped" person. Sometimes I think we all really have nothing better to do.

 

[JackFTwist]

for those who claim any merit to the inane thread question: let's take a field trip to the real world.

There ar plenty of people in hospital-institutional settings and foster care settings who have little if no connection with the world as we experience it - sensory depravation, or brain deviations that do not allow the processing of sensory information - so they are without access to the information that we derive from the senses

Yet they are sexual, and they have orientations.

It is beyond anti-scientific thinking to assume that: I see cock, I want, I gay, if I no see cock, I must be straight. We don't become gay because of what we see or don't see; we don't become gay, it is innate, within us, not something that is determined by the experiential or the ontological, it is from within. When those of us who can process sensory information encounter something our response is predetermined by the wiring of our brain. For those who cannot, the urge for sexual expression is of course present - and it will react for that which it is oriented to, where it has experiential ontological cognitive information or not.

By the same token, a person with no ability to act sexually - a parapalegic, quadrapalegic for example, will still have sexual impulses and an orientation - the sexual component is not determined by the physical abilities or inabilities, it is a predetermined existing component of a living person.

Enough of this. It is the 21st century. Lt us live as it is so.

 

[james1200]

^^...a sense of humor is obviously something we're born with (or not) as well.

 

[Croynan]

for those who claim any merit to the inane thread question: let's take a field trip to the real world.

There ar plenty of people in hospital-institutional settings and foster care settings who have little if no connection with the world as we experience it - sensory depravation, or brain deviations that do not allow the processing of sensory information - so they are without access to the information that we derive from the senses

Yet they are sexual, and they have orientations.

It is beyond anti-scientific thinking to assume that: I see cock, I want, I gay, if I no see cock, I must be straight. We don't become gay because of what we see or don't see; we don't become gay, it is innate, within us, not something that is determined by the experiential or the ontological, it is from within. When those of us who can process sensory information encounter something our response is predetermined by the wiring of our brain. For those who cannot, the urge for sexual expression is of course present - and it will react for that which it is oriented to, where it has experiential ontological cognitive information or not.

By the same token, a person with no ability to act sexually - a parapalegic, quadrapalegic for example, will still have sexual impulses and an orientation - the sexual component is not determined by the physical abilities or inabilities, it is a predetermined existing component of a living person.

Enough of this. It is the 21st century. Lt us live as it is so.

I sure would like to see that rather categorical statement proved - last i heard environment may/is/can/does/ also play a role in determining sexuality along with one's sexual identity. Let's not leave him/her/it out of the ranks of those under discussion.

just a stupid comment from the local stupid village idiot. if i have been offensive, please forgive me, but tomorrow is going to be a rather unpleasant day for me, and right about now my nerves are rather shot.

eM.