Homosexuality in Prison

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.

This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.

[/quote]

Woman can and do get aroused during rapes. It is most likely a natural protection system developed to protect women from the fact that a lot of sex throughout human history has been forced.

Obviously this is not the case for all women during all rapes, I didn’t say that. And your point about it being painful, humiliating and scarring is very true and makes exactly the point, arousal and desire are two totally different things.

I have had sex with women that I felt no desire for whatsoever. I’m sure most guys have done exactly the same.

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.

This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.

You might not want to jump so fast to calling someone else idiotic. While you are not wrong in how you described rape and its effects, sexual arousal during rape is quite well documented (in female and male vicims). It is also well documented that many women have violent rape fantasies.

An interesting and pertinent paragraph is quoted below, and paints a very sad picture of society where anti-homosexual people and feelings still permeate.

"Some gay survivors remark that it was only during sexual abuse that they became aware of the possibility of same-sex sexual activity, and while they know that what they experienced was abuse, they learned something about their sexuality, and may have liked some of the stimulation. It is very concerning that some gay youth only learn about same-sex sex in the context of abuse! "

The full article touches on several issues and is quite informative anecdotally.

A brief discussion on rape fantasies; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_45/ai_n24383385/pg_12/

Here is a paper that differentiates rape and sexual arousal;
[i]"Abstract

The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetrator�?�¢??s defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded."[/i]
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353113103001536

This article describes a fascinating study on mind vs genitals in women.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/01/26/rape-fantasies-and-female-arousal.aspx

Women were asked to record their arousal to various kinds of imagery, and their actual arousal was also measured; the two did not always coincide, for example greater arousal was measured (than reported) when straight women were shown lesbian pornography. Arousal was also measured (but not reported) when viewing bonobos mating.

The results provide some evidence for a hypothesis of arousal (lubrication) in women as an evolutionary defense mechanism; in pre-civilised times the natural urges of males would have been far more unchecked and rape therefore far more common. Women who were able to lubricate in response to such threats would reproduce and suffer less physical damange, women who were unable were less likely.

In conclusion, Cockney Blue was exactly write when he said; “zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.”

So because some cunt psychologist wrote in in a blog it has to be true right?

I don’t know what its like in England, but in a large city like NYC, you have no idea how many women are raped in places like alleys and abandoned buildings, usually by one or more individuals at the same time. It’s so bad there that it is more uncommon to meet a woman who HAS been raped than vice versa.

From the women I have spoken with, they are not excited in the first place which means that their vaginas are dry. I mean seriously, do you think that the rapist uses foreplay and condoms? For fucks sake, if the guy has HIV, being raped can be a death sentence. Can you imagine the kind of terror that instills in someone? If a woman is close to ovulating, then it means that she has to have an abortion. In some cases, where the victim is young, their reproductive organs are destroyed.

Usually too they either get beat or it is at gunpoint. Either way it is under the threat of violence and forced upon them. Many times these women suffer severe depression, trust issues with men, physical pain and trauma that effects them later into life and suffer things like nightmares.

I hope the two of you get get raped by two guys with 12 inch cocks and no vaseline. Maybe they will make you suck their dicks or else they will knock your teeth out with a pipe. After you get a few stitches in your asshole, tell me how you hard a hard on during the whole ordeal. May both of you twats get raped for posting this kind of drivel on this board.
[/quote]

Way to totally miss the point. No one is saying anything other than that rape is a horrible thing. No-one should have to experience it gay or straight and rapists are scum. This however has nothing to do with arousal.

I am still waiting for the PRISON part of the argument, since NO ONE has even bothered to consider it in the title of the thread. Do you think your UCLA study applies in prison? Or gay marriage in the states applies in prison?

The UCLA study is about the percentage of gay legal unions in the U.S., which addresses a question that evolved later in the discussion. Why would it have anything to do with male-on-male sex in prisons?

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I am still waiting for the PRISON part of the argument, since NO ONE has even bothered to consider it in the title of the thread. Do you think your UCLA study applies in prison? Or gay marriage in the states applies in prison? [/quote]

The original post:

[quote]I didnt want to highjack the Prop 8 thread so I made a new one.

In the Prop 8 thread the subject of homosexuality (sexual orientation, really) being a choice came up. There were some opinions throw out there back and forth but I thought of somthing, what about people who go to prison and are straight, have sex with the same sex while they are there, and then go back to having sex with the opposite sex when they get out? This realy boggles me because I’ve been deployed to Iraq twice, once for a year, and then for 15 months. I never looked at any of the other guys and thought about having sex with them. Could it be that the prison enviroment actually brings out the true sexual nature of people? [/quote]

I think we’re talking about the TRUE SEXUAL NATURE OF PEOPLE now rather than the PRISON part of the argument.

But at any rate MaximusB, what are your views on the matter of prison sex? Is it indicative of inherent homosexuality? A power game? Arousal expressed toward someone for whom desire is not, in fact, present?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

That is probably the only response that even starts to make sense in this thread.

Did you miss the other “gay” thread where this argument actually came up? It was my introduction to Zeb…not a name I’ll forget soon after that!

Full disclosure: He later claimed that he “accidentally” included this argument and that he “really” doesn’t believe it.

I’m surprised that you want to carry this on, you didn’t have much of a stomach for the facts on the other thread. If so you can begin to answer all of the other questions that you dodged on that thread relative to why the statistics for gay marriage are so low in states and countries where gay marriage is allowed.

Care to begin, or are you going to do what you did on the other thread and turn tail and run?
[/quote]

Boy I just might, you do have some great “facts”. Could you start off with another conspiracy theory though? Provide a link if you’d like…AND you can even claim you don’t believe it if you prefer… You know, you offer me a little entertainment first?

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
I hope the two of you get get raped by two guys with 12 inch cocks and no vaseline. Maybe they will make you suck their dicks or else they will knock your teeth out with a pipe. After you get a few stitches in your asshole, tell me how you hard a hard on during the whole ordeal. May both of you twats get raped for posting this kind of drivel on this board.
[/quote]

I consider this paragraph to be emblematic of the level of your emotional and general intelligence, and as such I will not be wasting my time discussing serious topics with you again.

Hey forlife, your response leaves quite a lot to be desired. You talk about marriage when in fact the counties in question had civil unions PRIOR to marriage.

Just more of the same from you. Ha ha, you never change.

I thought this was interesting. It seems that this President and this Supreme Court want to continue to hold the line on Gays in the military.

Good decision.

“The Supreme Court dismisses a challenge to the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, meaning gays and lesbians still cannot serve openly in the military. Despite stating his opposition to the policy during last year’s campaign, President Barack Obama did not support the legal challenge.”

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:

That is probably the only response that even starts to make sense in this thread.

Did you miss the other “gay” thread where this argument actually came up? It was my introduction to Zeb…not a name I’ll forget soon after that!

Full disclosure: He later claimed that he “accidentally” included this argument and that he “really” doesn’t believe it.

I’m surprised that you want to carry this on, you didn’t have much of a stomach for the facts on the other thread. If so you can begin to answer all of the other questions that you dodged on that thread relative to why the statistics for gay marriage are so low in states and countries where gay marriage is allowed.

Care to begin, or are you going to do what you did on the other thread and turn tail and run?

Boy I just might, you do have some great “facts”. Could you start off with another conspiracy theory though? Provide a link if you’d like…AND you can even claim you don’t believe it if you prefer… You know, you offer me a little entertainment first? [/quote]

And you offer nothing in terms of a comeback. This is no surprise, after reading some of your drivel in other threads.

I do still wonder though, how many more posts will you spend running?

What’s this, 5 or 6?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey forlife, your response leaves quite a lot to be desired. You talk about marriage when in fact the counties in question had civil unions PRIOR to marriage.
[/quote]

Most of your “statistics” referred to couples in relationships, and were NOT about couples in civil unions or other legally binding unions.

Not to mention that they were in countries outside the U.S., while the comprehensive UCLA study looked at every state within the U.S.

Now are you going to have an ounce of integrity and actually address the UCLA study? Or are you going to continue whining about everyone ignoring your “statistics”, while hypocritically ignoring the most comprehensive study of same sex legal unions in the United States?

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Way to totally miss the point. No one is saying anything other than that rape is a horrible thing. No-one should have to experience it gay or straight and rapists are scum. This however has nothing to do with arousal.[/quote]

THERE IS NOTHING AROUSING ABOUT IT TO THE VICTIM. Their vaginas are bone dry and a penis tears the insides out of them. It is also a perspective death sentence or a way to get a lifelong STD and a potential abortion. Some women have to get stitches after it happens to them. Kids who have that shit happen to them often can’t have kids. This is not to mention the fact that they suffer from depression, recurring nightmares and the like…

If there was any woman or man who would get off on that, they would have to be very mentally disturbed.

[quote]Jab1 wrote:

I consider this paragraph to be emblematic of the level of your emotional and general intelligence, and as such I will not be wasting my time discussing serious topics with you again.[/quote]

I could not care less what you think about me. Chances are that if you tried to do my job would be staring at the ol’ blackboard scratching your head like a chimpanzee…

[quote]forlife wrote:
The UCLA study is about the percentage of gay legal unions in the U.S., which addresses a question that evolved later in the discussion. Why would it have anything to do with male-on-male sex in prisons?[/quote]

Because you clearly didn’t bother you to read the whole title, just the homosexuality part. The study would not be applicable.

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
I am still waiting for the PRISON part of the argument, since NO ONE has even bothered to consider it in the title of the thread. Do you think your UCLA study applies in prison? Or gay marriage in the states applies in prison?

The original post:

I didnt want to highjack the Prop 8 thread so I made a new one.

In the Prop 8 thread the subject of homosexuality (sexual orientation, really) being a choice came up. There were some opinions throw out there back and forth but I thought of somthing, what about people who go to prison and are straight, have sex with the same sex while they are there, and then go back to having sex with the opposite sex when they get out? This realy boggles me because I’ve been deployed to Iraq twice, once for a year, and then for 15 months. I never looked at any of the other guys and thought about having sex with them. Could it be that the prison enviroment actually brings out the true sexual nature of people?

I think we’re talking about the TRUE SEXUAL NATURE OF PEOPLE now rather than the PRISON part of the argument.

But at any rate MaximusB, what are your views on the matter of prison sex? Is it indicative of inherent homosexuality? A power game? Arousal expressed toward someone for whom desire is not, in fact, present?

[/quote]

This thread has completely gone off topic to the original thread title, but the nature of homosexuality in prison is nothing like outside. Gay men stick together in prison, for if a gay man tried to solicit sex with a straight man, it could cost him his life. Literally, if a gump flirts with a straight man, the straight man could inflict whatever harm on the gay man and is bound by his own discretion. This is why gay men don’t really try to have sex with straight men, the risk is not worth it. You might get beat up, stabbed, or killed, so gays just stay with themselves for those reasons.

This ridiculous issue of choice, genetics, blah blah blah, go right out the window when your life is threatened. People here are associating regular behavior being the same in prison as outside. It’s not, not even close. But this topic has gotten so off course it’s ridiculous.

[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Way to totally miss the point. No one is saying anything other than that rape is a horrible thing. No-one should have to experience it gay or straight and rapists are scum. This however has nothing to do with arousal.

THERE IS NOTHING AROUSING ABOUT IT TO THE VICTIM. Their vaginas are bone dry and a penis tears the insides out of them. It is also a perspective death sentence or a way to get a lifelong STD and a potential abortion. Some women have to get stitches after it happens to them. Kids who have that shit happen to them often can’t have kids. This is not to mention the fact that they suffer from depression, recurring nightmares and the like…

If there was any woman or man who would get off on that, they would have to be very mentally disturbed.

[/quote]

Phil, go back, read my post again, get out a dictionary to check the long words then try, really try to understand that arousal is the bodies physical response, desire is the mental state, the two are linked but not the same thing.

Come on budy, work with me on this one…

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hey forlife, your response leaves quite a lot to be desired. You talk about marriage when in fact the counties in question had civil unions PRIOR to marriage.

Most of your “statistics” referred to couples in relationships, and were NOT about couples in civil unions or other legally binding unions.[/quote]

You are exactly wrong, AGAIN. Most of the government census statistics were all about married gay couples (or the lack thereof).

Wrong again. According to every single state that has either gay marriage or civil unions homosexuals are marrying at a lesser rate. In fact it’s only a blip on the screen. I mentioned the various countries because they’ve had gay marriage for a longer time. Places like the Netherlands have had gay marriage for 10 or 11 years and gays are just not getting married.

I already said that you cherry picked one study. But that doesn’t compare to every single state and something like 5 countries which I clearly pointed out.

Again, why is it so hard to believe that male homosexuals have many partners and don’t want to settle down?

It is a fact.

Sorry forlife.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Because you clearly didn’t bother you to read the whole title, just the homosexuality part. The study would not be applicable.[/quote]

I responded to the OP, and have stayed involved with the discusssion which gasp has evolved into other areas touching on homosexuality. Shocking, I know, but discussion boards sometimes work that way.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
This ridiculous issue of choice, genetics, blah blah blah, go right out the window when your life is threatened. People here are associating regular behavior being the same in prison as outside.[/quote]

The reason we were discussing it was that people like Zeb were insisting that it is physically impossible for a hetero man to become aroused with another man, regardless of religious or social pressures.

Prison sex between men with a heterosexual orientation disproves that, as does the cultural institution of male on male sex among aristocratic Greeks.

[quote]forlife wrote:

Prison sex between men with a heterosexual orientation disproves that, as does the cultural institution of male on male sex among aristocratic Greeks.[/quote]

There you go again talking about something that you know nothing about, none of us have any good data on the subject. I asked early in the thread if anyone had any statistics regarding homosexual activity in prison. As I recall no one responded to my request. This means that people like you should not have free range to say whatever you like regarding heterosexual males who happen to be incarcerated.

As far as you and I know there is only very minimal involvement regarding homosexual activity , But that doesn’t stop you from droning on about heterosexuals having sex with men. You must have seen something that Hollywood produced and as far as you’re concerned it’s fact, right?

Then again, it makes about as much sense as the other blather that you’ve tried to pawn off as fact. What is it that one poster called it? Oh yes, “gay logic”.

More of the same.