Disgust of same sex couples

Did I say anywhere in my initial post that I even had any interest in what 2 (or more) consenting adults do on their own time?

I do believe that was my initial point.

You flatter yourself with thinking you know how to read.

Sorry if I expressed myself poorly. My point was that it's difficult to ignore the sexual life of friends. At some point it's gona burst in the conversation. It is wiser IMO to NOT ban it from one's mind and instead to try and grow confortable with it.

Even when I do discuss sex with close friends Oliver, I only think of it in the abstract, more or less. Such as "people have sex" I'm really not picturing them in particular. I'm not repressed or anything. It's just that I know what sex looks like, and I don't need to bring it to mind in technocolor to understand and empathize with whatever we're talking about.

I don't "ban" those thoughts, it's just not of much interest to me in general to imagine the particulars of what other people do sexually for any appreciable length of time. The only sex life I'm really interested in is mine and my partner.

We all know people have sex, we all know the varities of sex to be had. It's not some big mystery. It doesn't offend me to visualize what goes on, it's simply not as interesting as thinking about other things in general. To be clear, when I initially used the word "disgust" I was in particular thinking about when, for instance, someone is younger and realizes and pictures their parents having sex. As one matures, it's just taken for granted, that sure, my parents have sex. Again, it's just not something much to think about.

In any event, my thoughts that day when I started the thread were more to the thoughts of "How can people get so upset about what gays and lesbians do in bed, when it's such a relatively small part of who they are?"

We don't look at straight people and automatically picture them having sex, why do those who say homosexuality, for instance "disgusts" them? Because they think that's all they are, what they do in bed.

BTW, I have no idea why this thread is tagged humor. I certainly wasn't joking or making fun.
I wish whoever did that would remove it. It's pretty disrespectful and immature actually.

I thumbed you up because I do appreciate your thoughtful response.

Thanks, appreciated. I didn't tag this thread as "humour", just to be clear. I get your point that such topics are often met with immature giggling, and that it's a bit annoying to the grown ups.


I agree that one should not give too much thought to the sex lives of others -- to each his or her own. But one could argue that sex is a major aspect of human condition. After all, gays ARE people who like to have sex with the same gender. That's what defines them. Homos can and do hold hand and kiss in public; they go through jealousy fits; and they talk about or allude to their sex lives just as heteros do. So anyone socially interacting with gays is bound to think of the sex at some point.

To me, the disgust at homosexual sex among some heteros has to do with a lack of familiarity with the idea. Anyone who finds it "gross" that two boys or two girls would make it needs IMO to think about it a little more rather than a little less, as a way to habituate him/herself to it.

You are over thinking it

"How can people get so upset about what gays and lesbians do in bed, when what two consenting people do together sexually IS NO ONE ELSES BUSINESS so long they dont bother anyone and no once claims to be abused?"

Like not shooting fourteen year old kids.

More of us should adopt that attitude. I'd go just a bit further: I have no right to being comfortable with it, just an obligation to be accepting of it.

I have to disagree with that. I don't think that's what defines them (definitively) at all.

No more than someone who was born color blind, or with an extraordinary sense of smell is defined solely by that aspect of who they are. Not the best example I know.

Aimee Mullins for instance.
Aimee Mullins is an accomplished athelete (runner), actress, and model, among many other things. Here's a couple of pictures of her...



What a knockout, huh?








Here's another picture of her, and some of her wardrobe choices....



Aimee was born with missing fibula bones, and had both her legs amputated below the knees when she was one year old.

Obviously, she has not allowed the world to sit back comfortably and say "oh, she disabled, crippled, etc" Not only has she made the world see that her lack of legs don't define her, she puts in in our face, making us look at what many might uncomfortably dismiss.

She makes us understand she is many things in addition to being "born that way"

She owns a lot of different legs, for different purposes. They cost a LOT of money. She WANTs you to look at and admire them. She said something like "I bought them, I want you to see them" in an article. (I'm paraphrasing)

But does what goes on below her knees define her? Of course not. If she had not shown the world that she's a lot of things. Many would have looked at her as "that poor legless crippled girl", who clumsily walks around with some god-awful prosthetic sticks attached to her stumps.


Perhaps the fact that the word "sex" is in the word homosexual is part of the problem. Sure, that the scientific word, but in everyday usage, it falls far short of the big picture. But there it is....homoSEXual. For some people, those 3 letters just jump in their face.

Words like gay, lesbian are a more inclusive descriptor.

Like Aimee is not a cripple, they are not a walking aroused vulva or penis.

In other words, if you are a person who immediately defines a person by that....get over yourself and look at the reality.

Awe inspiring stuff. I never heard of this person before, she's awesome!

And what if, on top of all this, she happened to be a lesbian?

In some peoples mind, all her other accomplishments and who she is would fall behind the fact that after hours and hours of training, being a spokesperson, and whatever else she is and does, she enjoys going to bed with women?

Chai,

Is editorial tagging "disrespectful and immature" when you do it? A quick at your tags (which anyone can see here - http://able2know.org/user/chai2/) shows disrespectful and immature tags from you intended to slap down a poster expressing an opinion you don't agree with.

- Crock Of Crap
- Crazy Person Whining
- Totally Unfair
- Misogyny (my personal favorite editorial tag)
- Bonehead
- Facepalm
- Tin Foil Hat
- Penthouse forum
- Go ahead and report me
- Pleaseeee

If you are against this "immature and disrepectful" behavior, then don't do it yourself. Otherwise you have no right to whine.

In this thread you are obsessing over what other people are thinking about. Your argument that your obsession into their mental state is their problem is rather humorous.

I personally think that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own minds is none of our business.

I see your point that homosexuals are not ONLY that, they are also many many other things such as, in your example, a woman, an athlete, a model, an amputee, etc. Yet, the very concept of "homosexual" (or "gay/lesbian") is about sexual orientation. It's not about athletics. That was what I was trying to say. So I take back the "that's what defines them"and I submit "that's what defines the concept".

cool.

concepts are defined as "an abstract idea; a general notion"

That fits.

Another thought, bringing in this general notion idea. Regarding those who have the general notion that homosexuality, because of the sex element, is wrong....

You give birth to a child, love them unconditionally (or so you say. I don't believe there's any such thing, but that's another subject). At any rate you tell people and yourself you love them unconditionally.

Then, the day comes they make "the announcement" to you, and you disown them, forbid them in your lives. Now, beyond this unconditional love concept, is not this person the exact same human that literally 30 seconds before you were fine with, and said you love?

Your unonditional love was just a concept, and obviously not true. And let's not get into, "I love you, but don't love what you do, so I can't have you in my life"

If you can turn away someone that you were fine with just yesterday, because of something you found out, something you always were, then you didn't love them. You only thought you did. You were loving an illusion you (albeit innocently) created, and not the reality. You were loving the concept of them, which was not accurate.

I couldn't blame someone who found out someone you said you loved was a pedophile, murderer, etc, that you didn't love them now.
But, they'd always had it in them to be those things, you just didn't know it. You loved someone who didn't really exist.

But to turn your love from someone doing something that harms no one?

Most parents would not do that though, even if homosexuality disgusts them. Most would keep loving their child and just hope that their child sees the heterosexual "light" sometime in the future, when they meet the "right girl" or boy. I suspect the almost Darwinian desire for grand children is a big factor here.

There's plenty that do disown them Oliver. You know that as well as I.

Things are improving, but....

For those that cannot accept reality, many may say I still love you, but their actions speak louder than words.

Why do you think so many people stay in the closet to their family? They can judge their reaction better than you or I.

Its really none of my business. Any interest I have in her sexuality would be on me, not her.

I wish to think that kids often underestimate their parents' emotional intelligence. But this is something of a half-full vs half-empty disagreement. Of course there are plenty of corseted narrow-minded parents out there too.

Ya, but with as much crap as kids have seen from their parents they have reason to discount anything an adult says.

Until they get kids themselves and start to realise that mom and dad were not so wrong after all...