If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
i love you klint!
Will claim, or actually do?
That's the difference.
Also, it can be argued that women are by nature more inclined towards bi-sexuality than men.
I also think you'll find that any magazine that showed bisexuality amongst men wouldn't sell much. If you look at the links I posted earlier, all women were aroused by all types of porn. Men were only aroused by the type of porn that matched their sexual orientation.
See the "erection test" link for why not many boys claim they are bi. i.e. there aren't that many of them.
Anyway, does this mean that you ARE saying that the media can make people gay?
Go on then - argue it. Its bollocks though - claiming that this or that is "natural" is just a fallacious argument, as if we can divorce human behaviour from social context.
See every scientific experiment done on the subject. Go search google (it'll take a while because of all the good looking women getting shagged for men's delight you'll find on there) that come up when you use these kinds of searches and come back educated.
Why is it whenever Blagsta loses an argument he starts bleating about "context"?
Ok, your forgiven. :razz:
Your problem is you're too entrenched in your own dogma to contemplate anything which might disrupt your oh-so perfect understanding of the world.
What's so outrageous in suggesting that women are more prone to bi-sexuality than men?
It's common knowledge supported with evidence...klintock's already provided some links and as he says there's a plethora of info which can easily be googled...but of course, just 'coz he thinks the state is imaginary, everything else he puts forwards is negated by default.
The point here about society & homosexuality is that if sexuality isn't psychologically pre-defined then it's logical to assume that society could theoretically eradicate homosexuality, or indeed eradicate heterosexuality.
That's the implication you're making.
Aye, but they exist as concepts. You hear me Klintock. Concepts!
It certainly does play a part in determining what people find attractive (go and look up how fetishes are formed in the brain), and it certainly determines how people react and behave to other people.
The media, as a primary factor, determines how people react to, and treat, others.
This is getting very tedious now. I suspect that because Blagsta is arguing what myself and several women (funny how they're ignored in this, isn't it?) are arguing, people are coming out with any old shit. I would also like to see more women rip the bollocks (literally) off those sex pests who grope women in pubs.
Alright, alright!
Me too. Said it more than once, in fact. Problem is, they don't all do it, some of those "sex pests" get a shag out of their actions.
What you are saying here is that the media unreality is stronger than actual reality, the one where I see fat men and women holding hands down the highstreet, women getting off with men who pinch their arses and men's eyes follow those pretty blondes around automatically. Bollocks, says I.
I like knowing how fetishes are formed, btw, it gives me the chance to make up new ones.
Nahh bollocks. I am betting that it's one of those "everyone else" things as well. "Everyone else" is affected by the media, not Kermit. Primary factor? Bollocks.
Let's have another model for this phenomenon.
Magazine industry tries to sell it's wares to as many people as possible. To do this, it must find what the majority of it's audience finds attractive. Over time, competition leads to certain traits selling more successfully than others, these are the things that the majority of people naturally like anyway. Everyone copies what works in business, so it's thin blondes with big tits in, female chimps out.
Things like shaved hair, slim figure, good teeth are attracive to a larger audience than being fat, hairy and halitosis ridden. Magazines with those things in them sell more, because that's what people already want to see. For those smaller markets for fat women etc, specialist publications serve their needs.
You just had to put that in didn't you.
Take your tongue out of blagstas hole will ya and read the thread.
I addressed womens POV in this quite a few times.
So would I, bitta craic eh?
Except that you can't see that your view is also a product of ideology.
Nothing outrageous at all. However you said it "could be argued" - go on then. Argue it.
klintock hasn't provided any credible links at all. You're also ignoring the fact that even "scientific" experiments take place within a social context.
No, he occasionally says something I agree with - and I comment on it.
No, no, no. That's your simplistic interpretation of what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying (and I have stated this VERY clearly), is that human sexuality is influenced (not defined, but influenced) by social contexts. Which it is. What it means to be homosexual, how this manifests itself is culturally determined, as is a culture's ideal of beauty within parameters set by evolution. To deny that is to deny the last few thousand years of history.
does that mean that todays kids are becoming increasingly violent because of violent films and games?
Like wtf?
Yep, of course it does.
Interestingly, the UN think that the glamourisation of violence, especially sexual violence against women, is making women at a far higher risk of rape and sexual abuse than ever before. Films such as Hollow Man glamourise and eroticise sexual violence as just an extension of sex, and it inevitably follows that rape and sexual abuse is glamourised and eroticised and made more socially acceptable.
Women's POV on this thread continues to be ignored, except when Turlough, Klintock and Walkindude pop in to say that they are wrong to feel threatened when they are indecently assaulted in pubs and clubs.
See there you go again, assuming that a hand on the arse is sexual assault. It's fucking harmless is what it is, and a light year from the real thing.
Why is men's POV not even considered by anyone. All I have done is say things that seem obvious facts to me, and some of the other male posters seem to agree (broadly) with what I am saying. Why the instant dismissal of what I say because I am not female?
How many of those gropers sit around and think, "You know, what I really need to do tonight is go out and deliberately upset someone, that'll get my rocks off no problem!"
Isn't it funny how the people on the receiving end of it don't think so?
Anyway, for your reading pleasure, s3 Sexual Offences Act 2003:
That's the kicker, isn't it?
By the way, how do you know who the act applies to?
A light touch on the hips at a night club after getting the eye or a bit of flutatious behavure is very different from a real hard grope between the legs at a buss stop I think.
Ive seen guys grab women from behind on the dance floor and start getting off with them, its not something Ive done hardly, reciently I did was dancing behind a girl and she thrust her arse mine with some force I thought it was a twat trying to start a fight, so I turned round looked at her she smiled and backed into me I put my hands on her hips and she gave a clear no , Women what are you like ?
So B can be screaming "touch me, touch me" but if A isn't sure that B really means it then A has committed an offence even though no-one would complain?
Does the law bray or what?
It's all about reasonableness- if a girl grabs your hands, it could be said that she consented, but if you walk up to a girl and grab both her arse cheeks, and she complains, then you're gonna get done. As I've said before, I know of one person on the Sex Offenders Register for groping someone's arse in a pub. So if you do it, and you do it to the wrong person, you're gonna get done.
And get the right one and get laid.
It's hardly a recipe for success is it?
Now that is wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.