Marinus

I've of course a lot of experience with European cinema and I've even more experience with American cinema. Don't make a mistake about that, the American market share in cinema and television on this side of the pond would probably make your jaw drop on the floor. It's far more likely that you know little to nothing about European cinema, and that it's you who can't make a comparison between American and other Western cinema/TV Compared to other Western cinema, here's hardly any sex in American cinema, and in the rare occasion sex is shown, it's usually shown in a fake-looking stylized way. boobs and penises are body-parts, not sex, btw, sex is two or more people having sex. Gratuitous violence on the other hand is common. There's sub genres of American films that seem to exist solely to portray violence. Violence is displayed very graphically and often in a positive light. etc. etc. Don't be to butt-hurt though, I love American flicks. And I'm not the only one, I think 90% of flicks shown in the theatres in NL are USA products.

I think there's much truth in the statement that American cinema glorifies violence but deals with the subject sex in a very awkward manner. Sex is usually only implied (i.e. the screen fades on a cuddling couple) or it is portrayed in a completely unrealistic way. This is so standard for American cinema that, for example certain HBO-shows which portray sex much more realistic, are often called "un-American". There's much criticism from Americans about the gratuitous sex, in for example, HBO's "Game of Thrones", while it's pretty tame for Western standards. Besides: most of the sex in it isn't gratuitous but serves the story-line. It's not that, for example, the Euros portray sex to get off on it, for that we have hot butt-sex porn, but sex is part of life and should be portrayed when the story is about sex. Mind you that an honest portrayal of sex usually doesn't result in horny eye-candy. Certain details are usually, but not always left out. There's usually no erect penises or visible penetration for example, But I've seen a graphic male on male blow-job in Dutch cinema, followed by a less graphic male on male gang rape a couple of scenes later. And that was a decent feature film. (Brokeback Mountain eat your heart out, the only controversial thing in that flick was the implied ultra-fast insertion of a penis is an unprepped anus without the use of lube)

That's not a very realistic statement me thinks.

LOL, family guy is the best! When I accidentally found the porn stash of an older brother I was shocked. Till then I assumed it looked the same down there in women. So a vagina looked like a mayor mutilation to me. As they say: first impressions last, and there was no hormonally driven change of mind after that.

Why? People hide a lot of activities with no ill intend. Most people shit hidden behind locked doors, does that worry you to?

Generally I really like the female form with all the nice curves and softness and stuff, not in a sexual way, but more like it's a work of art. But the vagina... it's not that I'm disgusted by it, that's not it, but it looks all wrong down there. I kinda have to resist the urge to rush the owner of the vagina to the hospital. I think I never totally recovered from the shock of seeing my first vagina.

well.... http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/how-a-gay-man-sees-a-vagina

My English can be a bit "off" at times. Don't let my almost flawless spelling fool you, that's not me that's the spell check. I'm really not that fluent in English.

You told me "to man up". I don't think you're in the position to tell me "to man up". I won't bore you with my life story, but I'm kind of an expert in the field of "manning up".

As luck would have it, I'm mean-spirited enough to slightly enjoy the fact that my marriage offends people like you. As for the Christianity-based arguments against same-sex marriage: the bible doesn't say anything about gay-marriage, besides that marriage isn't exactly a Christian invention and last but not least, it's beyond me why any self-respecting homosexual would want to marry anywhere near a church.

The reason I write in the SC is mainly entertainment, so don't worry too much about my emotional distress. In fact my homosexuality doesn't cause any distress whatsoever, not even because of rejection by others, because in my nick of the woods homosexuals are completely integrated in society and given the full set of rights any human should have. I didn't even have to protest for those rights, they practically handed them to me on a silver platter when I turned 18. As Meso points out, there's no logic behind the "homosexuality is a choice" nonsense. While one can choose to not act on one's sexual orientation, it's not possible to choose one's SO. There's some arguments to abstain from homosex, that mainly revolve around the Bronze Age idea that an invisible man in the sky doesn't like homosex. I really need something better than that to quit sex. I did that when I was 14 and came out of the closet. And btw: I think I could learn you a thing or two about manning up after personal loss and tragedy.

I can choose when, where and with whom. In other words I do have "sexual control", as you put it. I think the problem lies with people like you, who think I should do the other sex. Never mind the fact that I've little to offer to the other sex. It's not like you would betroth your daughter to me. And I won't "behave" (or "man up" as you put it) just because my default sexuality offends the likes of you. I don't consider that to be an extra bonus, but it sure is amusing.

I think it's time YOU man up. I can watch hardcore lesbian porn whilst eating fish without cringing, and yet I've to deal with loads of "manly" heterosexual men who turn to whiny bitches the moment they see two men kissing. Sure, you don't have to like it, but it's not the end of the world. Get over it, different people like different things. Some people like to eat semi-solidified rotten milk, AKA, cheese . I really don't get that, it's disgusting, and so I look the other way. I guess that's to hard for you?

Well Politic Correctness sort of forbids to even suggest that there might be anything wrong with gays. It's beyond me how anyone can keep trying to consistently knock up the wrong half of the population without thinking "Hey, it seems like something went wrong here" at some point. I think the anomaly isn't worth all the fuss some religious groups are making because of it. Yes, we don't procreate but as luck would have it we already have enough humans on this rock. I think most homosexuals are what you refer to as true homosexuals. There's some anomaly in their early development and because of that they turn out gay. The hypothesis that the brain is partly female because of homosexual behaviour is not very likely, most homosexuals know it's not going to be bees and flowers for them long before they even know what homosexual behaviour (or any other sexual behaviour for that matter) is. Homosexuality can have other causes like sexual abuse, but I believe this is rare. One interesting point is that females seem to be more likely to ignore their sexual orientation than males. For example, If a heterosexual opts to commit to a homosexual relation, it's usually a woman Homosexuals aren't really boys in a girl's body or visa versa, but I think transgenderism is closely related to homosexuality. The way I see it, homosexuals are males and females with a hybrid male/female mind. I think the Native Americans weren't that far off with their "third gender" they referred to as two-spirits. (Which included everyone not straight, it seems non-straights were completely integrated in their societies, btw.)

That's what I tried to explain: there's evidence that suggests that the more fertile women are the main "producers" of gay males. Of course a higher fertility in women is a huge advantage even if part of the offspring is de facto infertile. The so called "gay uncle theory" (gays as some sort of naturally produced nanny) is a bit to far-fetched I think, but there might be some truth in that. Even in modern societies gay males do tend to gravitate to jobs that involve caring for other people.

Homosexuality is identified in numerous species of animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior If that's not enough, there's the Bonobo which is a species consisting of hyper sexual bisexuals. About Bonobo sexuality: But even if it is unnatural, what is the big problem? Our lifes consist of unnatural things

Sexual orientation is definitely in our wiring. The brain of homosexuals is for a part wired as the brain of a female. Ironically this leads to the situation that homosexuals are more likely to understand women than straight males. You can bet God laughs His Holy ass off over that. The gay-gene on the other hand..... The simple fact is that natural selection would lead to extinction of a gay-gene. While gays can procreate it's obvious that homosexuality doesn't exactly come in handy when in the whole survival of the fittest thingy. Some evidence suggest that homosexuality is coupled with high fertility in women. Gay males have on average more older brothers then straight males, so this could mean that the mother receives genetic advantage of the fertility genes that also cause homosexuality as a side effect. Homosexuals are evolutionary collateral damage of high fertility in women as it were. (I'm sure I'll be fined by the Gay Agenda over that one)

I think human sexuality is a sliding scale from 100% heterosexual/0% homosexual to 0% heterosexual/100% homosexual. It depends on your reasoning how you categorize people. Personally I consider men who are predominately into men to be gay, even if they sometimes do get intimate with women. AFAICS most men are predominately hetero, 2-5% is predominately gay, and bisexuals are even more rare. Female (homo)sexuality works different, and is overall much more complex IMHO. Well there's only one type of homosexual, since the term homosexual refers to one specific behaviour. "Straight acting" is a rather stupid phrase to refer to gays who aren't obviously gay. To be straight acting you've to de the horizontal tango with your fag-hags or else you act gay. But I see what you mean. I think there's a correlation between male homosexuality and effeminate behaviour, but that's about it. Gays are on average more often effeminate than straights but there's a lot of masculine gays that are as gay as the most flamboyant queers. Also the different groups of gays aren't that well defined. Bisexuals OTOH seem to be uber masculine without many exceptions.(personal observation)

You almost had me convinced, but then I saw you didn't refute anything at all, and I concluded I won the argument.

Eminem, is that you? I'm usually not into racially confused guys in baggy pants but if he comes with a couple of millions, I'm eager to turn the blind eye.

Your request was to site an example. I interpreted that as one (1) example, and I came up with one (1) recent example. You mention the "homosexual agenda" which is the imaginary secret conspiracy of the homosensuals to make Gaya Gay or humanity homo or something like that. Or in other words it's you displaying an irrational fear/dislike for the homos. This is known as homophobia. Which is no surprise because you fit the profile Ehm.. nope And you've got an irrational anxiety and/or dislike for the gays. (What's up with the word "gay" btw. I know it was born 9 months after the words "slut" and "happy" got drunk together and had hot butt-sex in the wrong orifice, but what has it ave to do with the homos?)

OK, I admit, I like boobs. And I don't mean man-boobs. I know it's unnatural and twisted, but they're like, you know, boobs. Yes dear, who wouldn't want a crazy gun-toting bible-thumping red-neck from Hicksville, Kentucky as a boy-friend. I dreamed about that since I was a little girl.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4289190 And I quote you from te second post. Believing in the existence of the illusive homosexual agenda is a common symptom of the condition homophobia vulgaris. Sure it's not proof you're a homophobe but it's the most plausible explanation for that post.

There's some irony in here me thinks. btw, it's not your conservatism that makes me think you're a homophobe, it's your apparent homophobia that makes me think you're homophobe. But I could be wrong, though, maybe you're a beacon of homophiliac enlightenment, and maybe Coreece is a blonde chick named Candy. The goal of the gay movement is to avoid special treatment. Some gays want a medal because they're homosexual, but the other 99% just want equal rights and just want to be left alone.