pubic_assistance

Thank you for sharing @Charlie . I love hearing stories of people's journey to love.

The researcher uses 99% instead of 100% because he believes there is no absolute in human sexuality. Using the example of very heterosexual oriented men adapting to environmental issues like jail time.

Where you fall on the scale is determined by biology. Research shows that the majority of humans fall somewhere floating in the middle. This allows for the existence of a few 99% gay and 99% straight and most everyone else can be had after three strong cocktails. 😉🍸

Again. You've made your opinion heard. Unfortunately the professional psychological community doesn't appear to agree with your opinion.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with cooking wine. The only reason to use drinking wine is that it's been sitting around for a while (that won't happen in MY house) 😉or as stated above some clueless friend gifts you a bottle of swill. I keep cooking wine in stock in my pantry at all times . White, Red, Marsala and Sherry. Certain vegetable dishes are better with a splash of vermouth instead of white wine. If you don't drink then definitely buy cooking wine. It wont turn to vinegar sitting around for months.

Great looking man Why focus on exact size of a penis ? You're not at the butcher shop buying by the pound. What you see is what you get .

I believe what Brad Bowens is postulating in his article is that his observations are that humans ( amongst many other mammals ) are innately sexually fluid and that there is a genetic predisposition toward a degree of homosexuality that environmental stimuli can trigger. So yes....some people are high on the scale and given an environment where they can act upon their homosexual tendencies they choose a homosexual lifestyle. This also goes for a-sexual people who ultimately choose a non sexual lifestyle, when they are low on the scale of both homosexual or heterosexual interest. The scale is NOT as rigid as the "born this way" theory purports. But that we start out on a scale toward one end or the other, and events can affect where we end up on that scale. The likelihood of going from one end of the scale to the other is the most uncommon...but moving along the middle of the scale most common. No one is assigned a sexuality that can't be affected unless they find themselves born at the far ends of that spectrum.

Modern Psychology defines sexual orientation as fluid and environmental, not merely biological - Adolescent boys in same-sex boarding schools partake in more homoerotic relationships than those in mixed-sex schools, but do not demonstrate higher rates of homoerotic behavior as adults (Bell et al., 1981; Money, 1988). The same phenomenon at all-female colleges is common being known as “lesbian until graduation” (Diamond, 2006). In prisons women have been found to bond sexually based on the need for friendship and a relationship that is supportive and not hostile (Maeve, 1999). In settings other than forced ones such as prisons, this occurrence might partly be explained by selection (homosexual individuals might unconsciously or consciously seek such settings). However, “selection” cannot account for the observed shift to more heteroerotic behavior in other-sex settings (Bell et al., 1981; Diamond, 2006; Maeve, 1999; Money, 1988). A viable alternative explanation is that the same-sex setting activates the homoerotic dimension resulting in its expression, at least when there is significant level of motivation on that dimension. As pertains to the heteroerotic dimension, triggers such as a reproductive opportunity or alliance formation can activate this dimension. The notion that sexual orientation dimensions can be activated or deactivated aligns with research indicating that homoerotic behavior can be elicited by circumstances (Easpaig et al., 2014; Iasenza, 2010; Kennedy, 2010; McKenzie, 2010; Pedersen & Kristiansen, 2008).

Seems like a tautology I don't understand why this is complicated. I asked who on the site has made a choice. Some of the gentlemen answered that for them, there was no choice. That is a valid answer. Others told their story of it being a journey. That journey is what I'd like to hear about, and it's also interesting to understand the proportion of men here who do feel there was never a choice. I find the subject interesting, as society is shifting once again to make room for people who have evolving viewpoints on self identification. The narrative of "Born this way" is outdated psychology so it's rather shocking to me how many gays cling to that like a life raft on the Titanic. It's just not that concrete for everyone with homosexual tendencies. From The American Journal of Psychotherapy Brad Bowins, M.D., F.R.C.P.(C) Published Online:30 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.2016.70.3.251 While it appears that sexual orientation is dimensional, the question arises as to how many dimensions apply? Although appealing for its simplicity, a single dimension ranging from homosexual to heterosexual, as for example used by Kinsey (1948, 1953), presents some major conceptual and practical problems (Muscarella, 1999; Shively & DeCecco, 1977; Storms, 1980). To start, homosexual and heterosexual motivation must represent a tradeoff, with more of one meaning less of the other. Consequently, a bisexual individual is less hetero than a strictly heterosexual orientation, and less homo than a fully homosexual orientation. Clearly this is not the case, as many bisexuals report urges for both sexes of comparable or greater strength than strict heterosexuals and homosexuals (Shively & DeCecco, 1977; Storms, 1980). It also implies that strict homosexuals and heterosexuals must have powerful urges towards their respective sex of attraction, not accounting for a range of sexual motivation in both groups.

Yes. You've made your point previously. You view sexual orientation as biological and lifestyle as a choice. But others disagree. "Sexual Orientation" has dimensions of reality beyond biology: The dimensions consist of sexual attraction, sexual behavior, sexual fantasies, emotional preference, social preference, lifestyle preference, and self-identification,

Actually I did not. I said he was making a VALID POINT. That doesn't mean I agreed with it. Simply that he shared a perspective that is common to the way SOME people view sexual orientation, so I clarified my use of the term in context to my conversation.

Thank you for sharing your life experience. Yes, tragedy and emotional trauma can also affect a person's sexual choices. It's not just biology.

I don't come up with anything when I do a Google Image search.

I appreciate when these guys are honest about offering a handy-j So annoying when you hire someone advertises therapeutic sessions availability only to discover they have ZERO training and very limited massage skills.

AGAIN (why do I have to keep repeating this )....I am not speaking to those of you who have NEVER had feelings for a woman. I am speaking to those who had to spend time deciding. I am quite well aware of "pray the gay away". I would point out that very religious families often have MANY expectations of how you are supposed to live. Not just with your sex life. Hiding behind a made up narrative about being forced into homosexuality is fine for some but not for all of us. I had no problem with people identifying me as "gay" during those years when I dated men, and spent a lot of time hanging around gay venues. But that was only PART of my journey to find where I wanted to land. It's distorting to the complexity of how I view myself sexually, socially and spiritually, to say my destiny was predetermined by my biology. The Argument(s) Against 'Born This Way' Gabrielle Kassel Published on September 23, 2021 "While the slogan was useful historically, these days, many LGBTQ+ people believe that the catchphrase actually intercepts long-term progress. For starters, it privileges those who experience their sexuality or gender as a fixed, non-changing thing, while invalidating those who experience their sexuality or gender as fluctuating, fluid, ever-evolving things."

Thank you ! Beautifully put. The gays don't hear how victimized they sound when they want to hide behind their "born this way" dogma.

In my observation, this is the gay man's argument. That somehow you're bound to be unhappy if you get married and have kids. This "research" you speak of is far too frequently tossed around by homosexuals as a badge of honor. "Oh...I'm a victim of biology, that's why I suck dick". I'm quite sure there are many homosexuals who have never had any romantic feelings toward women. But this research that dates back to the 70's and 80's failed to identify the large population of bisexual people who are left indecisive about their sexual orientation and what to do about it for years, until they settle down ( or don't). THAT is the population I am speaking to in my question. How many of you are men who had romantic feelings for women at one time, but decided a boyfriend was more suited to your needs ? I went back and forth all through my twenties with boyfriends and girlfriends. I needed to pick a side that worked best for me. That's a CHOICE. Doesn't mean that some gays don't have a choice, that biology wins out. I am speaking to those who did have a choice.

Which is probably why gays get so upset when bisexual people explain that for us, our sexual orientation and lifestyle IS and CAN BE a choice. I chose to maintain a heterosexual lifestyle while occasionally acting on my homosexual interests but without engaging in anything more than sex with men. Romantic relationships with men never worked for me, because gays always seem to have their eyes on the next hot hook up, leaving little time for focusing on building a solid relationship. That's not to say relationships with women aren't complicated and sometimes a minefield of navigating unfamiliar emotions...but I have always felt a stronger commitment from women to build a nest. So that's what I CHOSE.

Yes. A valid point. thanks. But my understanding was that orientation was the same because it's your identity not necessarily your biology sex·u·al o·ri·en·ta·tion noun noun: sexual orientation; plural noun: sexual orientations a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, etc.

You need to let people know where you live and where you work out. Wishing you luck in your search.

I am hoping the new owners have learned to actually clean the place. I came home with a staph infection last time I was there. ( Under the previous ownership )

My gay neighbors are in Cambodia too. Is there a gay cruise visiting this week ?

In all seriousness....I have given some advice to young men who were looking to make a little extra by adding erotic elements to their massage repertoire. I don't mind giving advice to help a person succeed.

A line grabbed from another thread that was "off topic".... I would like to ask how many members ultimately felt they CHOSE their sexual orientation as opposed to having it assigned ? For me ....I have been completely bisexual throughout my life from the time I was a child an my mother needed to explain to me that I was "supposed to" be attracted to girls but only "like" boys as friends. ( It never quite worked out that way for me ). Ultimately I needed to "Pick a team" to have a serious relationship. ( Not really a believer in the thrupple concept ). So married my female bestie who I share the commonality of a long history of bisexual exploration. It's interesting to me that so many gays are in complete denial of the ability to choose. I'm sure there are as many gays who can't as straights who can't but I am always feeling a bit left out when the gays pretend that NONE of us make a choice. WHO ELSE CHOSE THEIR LIFESTYLE ?

TMPL was a David Barton brand which always promoted themselves to homosexuals who like to hook up at the gym. So no surprises here.