Which form of homosexuality has been most prevealtent and other related questions.

This question popped in my head from Joker's female sexualism related thread:

Is lesbianism more naturally common then male gaiety?

On average in human recorded history which has been more prevalent?

Is it because society is ok with lesbianism if it is more prevalent, or the other way around if the other is?

Why?

(Myself considering that lesbianism is the more prevalent or socially acceptable/ or female bisexual-ism)is it prevalent as a result of male interest.

Regardless why did males evolve to be interested in such?

Because usually it's a sign that they have several girls interested in them, and not only that, but it also goes back to the days when women were a commodity and you were lucky if you got the good ones. When a male would have more than one female he was probably well off. Women are still looked at like this, except since in only some places women are living in enough poverty to need men, there are new found freedoms to go with old attractions.

Poison IV wrote:

Because usually it's a sign that they have several girls interested in them, and not only that, but it also goes back to the days when women were a commodity and you were lucky if you got the good ones. When a male would have more than one female he was probably well off. Women are still looked at like this, except since in only some places women are living in enough poverty to need men, there are new found freedoms to go with old attractions.

I speculate that secluding treatment of women condensed their social relating and induced higher levels of close-friendships and thus later desires for such and more concern for fitting in...but also leads to more interconnection that falls into more willingness to relate on physical levels...or something....

Abstract wrote:

I speculate that secluding treatment of women condensed their social relating and induced higher levels of close-friendships and thus later desires for such and more concern for fitting in...but also leads to more interconnection that falls into more willingness to relate on physical levels...or something....

Huh?

When were women secluded from social interaction?

If anything women are much more secluded now than they've ever been via facebook, texting etc

Social circles were much more prevalent when women were more of homebodies, ironically :]

And also, I don't think women truly have more of a willingness to connect on physical levels. Men are absolute horndogs compared to most women, women are more emotional and not just about sexuality....

So again, anyway, we were talking about what men want and why they want it. I gave my input. This is something I've thought about myself a long time ago, and judging from the overall behavior of males it is about more than just seeing girls be sexual together....there is a hidden need for power and status, and that comes from even older habits. Usually the same type of men that are into watching girls make-out are the same ones who admittedly dream about having several sexual partners at a time, or 2 or 3 girlfriends. Women are looked at as something to possess like property.

And, since it is not looked at nearly as acceptably for men to act like entertainment toys that interact sexually on purely playful levels, male bisexuality is more frowned upon....

Men are still trying to retain their power in this way, and it presents itself in false, mixed up ways....

Poison IV wrote:

And, since it is not looked at nearly as acceptably for men to act like entertainment toys that interact sexually on purely playful levels, male bisexuality is more frowned upon....

Men are still trying to retain their power in this way, and it presents itself in false, mixed up ways....

Bisexuality tends to be looked upon as a choice of wherever you can get it -a kind of hedonistic choice. It's not looked upon as a matter of being naturally disposed to an orientation like homosexuality is.

But how is this a matter of men trying to retain their power?

I mean I get the first point. I'm unsure of the second.

Unintentional edit by Abstract: I am really sorry about this Posion but I thought I was quoting you and I had actually pressed the edit button and posted over your post... I should have noticed that it did not start with the right quotation marks... Unfortunately going back did not show up the old post...

Poison IV wrote:

And, since it is not looked at nearly as acceptably for men to act like entertainment toys that interact sexually on purely playful levels, male bisexuality is more frowned upon....

Precisely this. Women are socialized as less-serious, hyper-sexualized, playful, irrational, emotional, moment-seizing "entertainment toys", at least patriarchically. A by-product of this type of socialization is higher tendencies of public displays of sexual-experimentation.

I also agree, in that men enjoy watching this happen for reasons engrained deeper than mere sexual excitation -- although it is certainly sexually exciting. Women descend to the level of property, of object, when they display their sexual-experimentations publicly -- they proclaim that they exist as sexual objects, that their playfulness and flirtatiousness is capable of eclipsing their personhood. In essence: that they are okay with being used. That man enjoys the sight of this is no mystery.

No, women are not socialized.

Like everything society, the group, takes the preexisting and applies it to its own contexts, accentuating aspects of it and repressing others.

Gender is not an invention of man, it is the application of sexual roles within social contexts.

Women are sexuality made manifest.
I agree with Weininger on this.

When men, as those who seek domination, seek to dominate nature or to gain control over their own nature, they are seeking control over the feminine.

Lesbianism is not looked down upon as much because females are sexual beings; they are sexuality in all ways.
Also there is no penetration in lesbian sexual intercourse.

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I speculate that secluding treatment of women condensed their social relating and induced higher levels of close-friendships and thus later desires for such and more concern for fitting in...but also leads to more interconnection that falls into more willingness to relate on physical levels...or something....

Huh?

When were women secluded from social interaction?

They were not secluded from social interaction they were held litterally into more localized areas, men traveled women didn't so women spent more time in tighter groups and thue were possibly lead into the habit of forming a larger number of more deep relationships with their fellows...

Abstract wrote:

Social circles were much more prevalent when women were more of homebodies, ironically :]

I think that is what i was saying.

Abstract wrote:

And also, I don't think women truly have more of a willingness to connect on physical levels.

With themselves... woman are more tuchy feely amongst themselves then men are, though a good many of men do the roughy toughy bit...

Abstract wrote:

So again, anyway, we were talking about what men want and why they want it. I gave my input. This is something I've thought about myself a long time ago, and judging from the overall behavior of males it is about more than just seeing girls be sexual together....there is a hidden need for power and status, and that comes from even older habits. Usually the same type of men that are into watching girls make-out are the same ones who admittedly dream about having several sexual partners at a time, or 2 or 3 girlfriends. Women are looked at as something to possess like property.

I imagine that many things play into anything, and come to think of it I would think that part of the interest in female to female sexual interaction by men probably is influenced by the past tendencies for having multiple female partners...

Again sorry Poison I accidentally edited over your post...won't happen again, i already did it one other time to another (fortunately i had the page opened on two tabs, and was able to copy/paste it back in...but not this time) (of course the edit button has to be right next to it)

Poison IV wrote:

Anytime you are sort of switching classic roles, there are signals you are sending to the others watching. These involve a kind of rebellious playfulness and a letting down of your guard. Men prefer to stay out of the spotlight, I believe.

Because spot lights are a waste of energy.

Σατυρ wrote:

When men, as those who seek domination, seek to dominate nature or to gain control over their own nature, they are seeking control over the feminine.

IMO: The female is only one domino in the chain of causes, one seeks sexual relations with a woman in seeking survival of humanity as a whole. That is what instinctively drives us I would think; the urge to preserve the organism that is humanity. That explains many of our other behaviors, so a man seeks also to help the self directly to survive for this goal, and thus domination over nature is directly for controlling what can prevent survival, sex or the woman is not purely a significant matter in that, though woman are nonetheless attracted to men that are good at surviving.

Abstract wrote:

They were not secluded from social interaction they were held litterally into more localized areas, men traveled women didn't so women spent more time in tighter groups and thue were possibly lead into the habit of forming a larger number of more deep relationships with their fellows...

Somehow I'm not envisioning a bunch of lonely women gathered around getting hot for eachother because their husbands went to war. Women ended up cheating on their husbands with the milkman or something.

Quote :

I imagine that many things play into anything, and come to think of it I would think that part of the interest in female to female sexual interaction by men probably is influenced by the past tendencies for having multiple female partners...

Yes, those who could afford it with looks and/or money.

Poison IV wrote:

Unintentional edit by Abstract: I am really sorry about this Posion but I thought I was quoting you and I had actually pressed the edit button and posted over your post... I should have noticed that it did not start with the right quotation marks... Unfortunately going back did not show up the old post...

It's ok. I do that too.

We seem to be the only dorks who can't quote right.

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

They were not secluded from social interaction they were held litterally into more localized areas, men traveled women didn't so women spent more time in tighter groups and thue were possibly lead into the habit of forming a larger number of more deep relationships with their fellows...

Somehow I'm not envisioning a bunch of lonely women gathered around getting hot for eachother because their husbands went to war. Women ended up cheating on their husbands with the milkman or something.

I don't know that they would have been getting hot for each other then at all. And it wasn't only a matter of men going to war.if one is to look back to the cultures around the cradle of civilization for much of it the women were prized and as a result protected and prevented from going out much outside of specified "appropriate areas". Such might have lead them to be more close-group-social...IDK...the more i am thinking about it now the more variables I am seeing that make it uncertain. it might be best to simply say that some conditioning evolved that lead to it, some of it might be very distant primal genetic programming (that survived due to natural selection)...

I think you are over complicating something that is not that complicated. It has much more to do with men, and very little to do with women....mainly because, yes, they have been treated like property and still are....

Women are not necessarily attracted to eachother more than men would be. I've already explained why female bisexuality is more open and desired.

Poison IV wrote:

I think you are over complicating something that is not that complicated. It has much more to do with men, and very little to do with women....mainly because, yes, they have been treated like property and still are....

Women are not necessarily attracted to each other more than men would be. I've already explained why female bisexuality is more open and desired.

A fair amount of my interest is in what aspects that are commonly grouped into the generalization "treated like property" are actual causes of the behavior, I do not think all that people call such are such, or causes of bisexuality Or that any of it is necessarily purely the cases, given certain other conditioning it is plausible that the cases might still not have lead to such. I also wonder what environmental situations lead to the behavior of men such as to then lead to this particular behavior of women if this all is the case?

Abstract wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

When men, as those who seek domination, seek to dominate nature or to gain control over their own nature, they are seeking control over the feminine.

IMO: The female is only one domino in the chain of causes, one seeks sexual relations with a woman in seeking survival of humanity as a whole. That is what instinctively drives us I would think; the urge to preserve the organism that is humanity. That explains many of our other behaviors, so a man seeks also to help the self directly to survive for this goal, and thus domination over nature is directly for controlling what can prevent survival, sex or the woman is not purely a significant matter in that, though woman are nonetheless attracted to men that are good at surviving.

In other words man seeks to dominate nature, control her, find his way inside of her, germinate her.

You'll have to remember that biological females have a masculine side, as well.

When I speak of masculinity/femininity I speak of ti as an attitude.
Of course biology affects attitude and so a biological female will be inclined to have the feminine aspects of her nature be the dominating ones.

Abstract wrote:

A fair amount of my interest is in what aspects that are commonly grouped into the generalization "treated like property" are actual causes of the behavior, I do not think all that people call such are such, or causes of bisexuality Or that any of it is necessarily purely the cases, given certain other conditioning it is plausible that the cases might still not have lead to such.

Well you can think that but my explanation still looks better than yours.

Quote :

I also wonder what environmental situations lead to the behavior of men such as to then lead to this particular behavior of women if this all is the case?

Because men want to be in charge? I don't know what answer you're looking for.

Basically right, men went off to hunt, and ended up fucking each other because they were gone for like, days and they got horny.


The women also found that they got horny, and there weren't any men around to fuck...

Later on, when the men were sort of smart and thought the women, well they weren't so, well they got close, and probably shared an intimate moment which both (2 geezers, perhaps man and boy/adolescent/pupil) awkwardly skirted around for a while before finally taking the plunge. They found it wasn't so bad but couldn't talk about it for ages.
Then it became clear that loads of guys were doing it. Then women wanted to get in on the action and what with all their new found liberties they decided to try out some of this gay love themselves. Men became superfluous to the women as they could orgasm and work for themselves.

Simple right?

Σατυρ wrote:

In other words man seeks to dominate nature, control her, find his way inside of her, germinate her.

Man seeks to survive; the sexual is an aspect of survival, survival is not an aspect of the sexual. I would think. But the metaphor works though some possible implications may not be accurate.

Σατυρ wrote:

You'll have to remember that biological females have a masculine side, as well.

When I speak of masculinity/femininity I speak of ti as an attitude.
Of course biology affects attitude and so a biological female will be inclined to have the feminine aspects of her nature be the dominating ones.

Thinking of it in that way I think of this:
"When men, as those who seek domination, seek to dominate nature or to gain control over their own nature, they are seeking control over the feminine.

As like saying that there is a yin-nature that seeks to combine with the yang-nature...yet does it seek or inevitably meet?

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

A fair amount of my interest is in what aspects that are commonly grouped into the generalization "treated like property" are actual causes of the behavior, I do not think all that people call such are such, or causes of bisexuality Or that any of it is necessarily purely the cases, given certain other conditioning it is plausible that the cases might still not have lead to such.

Well you can think that but my explanation still looks better than yours.

Quote :

I also wonder what environmental situations lead to the behavior of men such as to then lead to this particular behavior of women if this all is the case?

Because men want to be in charge? I don't know what answer you're looking for.

What made men want to be in charge? Why are they that way, what aspects of nature abused them into such a state?

Poison IV wrote:

Because usually it's a sign that they have several girls interested in them, and not only that, but it also goes back to the days when women were a commodity and you were lucky if you got the good ones. When a male would have more than one female he was probably well off. Women are still looked at like this, except since in only some places women are living in enough poverty to need men, there are new found freedoms to go with old attractions.

Women still are a commodity only nowadays women sell themselves to the highest bidder with their prostitute whoring pathological nature.

Everywhere the world over women complain about men objectifying them which is utter complete bullshit because for all intents and purposes women do that well enough on their own.

Women objectify themselves to men.

Quote :

Without Music: Precisely this. Women are socialized as less-serious, hyper-sexualized, playful, irrational, emotional, moment-seizing "entertainment toys", at least patriarchically. A by-product of this type of socialization is higher tendencies of public displays of sexual-experimentation.

I also agree, in that men enjoy watching this happen for reasons engrained deeper than mere sexual excitation -- although it is certainly sexually exciting. Women descend to the level of property, of object, when they display their sexual-experimentations publicly -- they proclaim that they exist as sexual objects, that their playfulness and flirtatiousness is capable of eclipsing their personhood. In essence: that they are okay with being used. That man enjoys the sight of this is no mystery.

Here comes in the politically correct bullshit.

Patriarchy bad. Feminized Matriarchy good.

Male feminists are such pussies.

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

They were not secluded from social interaction they were held litterally into more localized areas, men traveled women didn't so women spent more time in tighter groups and thue were possibly lead into the habit of forming a larger number of more deep relationships with their fellows...

Somehow I'm not envisioning a bunch of lonely women gathered around getting hot for eachother because their husbands went to war. Women ended up cheating on their husbands with the milkman or something.

Quote :

I imagine that many things play into anything, and come to think of it I would think that part of the interest in female to female sexual interaction by men probably is influenced by the past tendencies for having multiple female partners...

Yes, those who could afford it with looks and/or money.

What I find that is interesting are those individuals who were heterosexual for the longest amount of time prior and then suddenly switched or crossed over in the decision making of becoming a homosexual later on.

What's interesting about that is it shows how homosexuality is not some specific feature people are born with or that is biologically inherent but rather instead is acquired later on as a sort of psychological reaction which I have argued for in other threads here.

We see this with a man that after divorcing his wife having three children later on becomes a homosexual afterwards.

Was the divorce a psychological trigger in the man in resorting to homosexuality?

We see this also with women where a woman after being divorced that also may have three children in this example also decides to make the switch to lesbianism.

Was her mistreatment from the former relationship from a man the trigger that made her switch to lesbianism psychologically in reaction?

It is examples like these that have made me propose that homosexuality is a psychological phenomena that is reactionary within certain individuals that may be exposed to such prevailing behavioral memes.

I find nothing biologically inherent when it concerns homosexual behaviors or practices.

Abstract wrote:

What made men want to be in charge? Why are they that way, what aspects of nature abused them into such a state?

You tell me.

One of the mysteries of life?

Or the easier way to do it:

Blame the women.

TheJoker wrote:

Women still are a commodity only nowadays women sell themselves to the highest bidder with their prostitute whoring pathological nature.

Everywhere the world over women complain about men objectifying them which is utter complete bullshit because for all intents and purposes women do that well enough on their own.

Women objectify themselves to men.

Joker, no offense, but you just seem mad becuz you aren't getting laid :p

Quote :

Without Music: Precisely this. Women are socialized as less-serious, hyper-sexualized, playful, irrational, emotional, moment-seizing "entertainment toys", at least patriarchically. A by-product of this type of socialization is higher tendencies of public displays of sexual-experimentation.

I also agree, in that men enjoy watching this happen for reasons engrained deeper than mere sexual excitation -- although it is certainly sexually exciting. Women descend to the level of property, of object, when they display their sexual-experimentations publicly -- they proclaim that they exist as sexual objects, that their playfulness and flirtatiousness is capable of eclipsing their personhood. In essence: that they are okay with being used. That man enjoys the sight of this is no mystery.

Quote :

Here comes in the politically correct bullshit.

Patriarchy bad. Feminized Matriarchy good.

Male feminists are such pussies.

He wasn't making a case for feminism o___0

TheJoker wrote:

What I find that is interesting are those individuals who were heterosexual for the longest amount of time prior and then suddenly switched or crossed over in the decision making of becoming a homosexual later on.

What's interesting about that is it shows how homosexuality is not some specific feature people are born with or that is biologically inherent but rather instead is acquired later on as a sort of psychological reaction which I have argued for in other threads here.

We see this with a man that after divorcing his wife having three children later on becomes a homosexual afterwards.

Was the divorce a psychological trigger in the man in resorting to homosexuality?

We see this also with women where a woman after being divorced that also may have three children in this example also decides to make the switch to lesbianism.

Was her mistreatment from the former relationship from a man the trigger that made her switch to lesbianism psychologically in reaction?

It is examples like these that have made me propose that homosexuality is a psychological phenomena that is reactionary within certain individuals that may be exposed to such prevailing behavioral memes.

I find nothing biologically inherent when it concerns homosexual behaviors or practices.

That doesn't mean that it can't be lifelong and biological. Some people dye their hair blonde...

Poison IV wrote:

Abstract wrote:

What made men want to be in charge? Why are they that way, what aspects of nature abused them into such a state?

You tell me.

One of the mysteries of life?

It's because life is fundamentally an Apollonian drive.