Be Excellent To Each Other

Male sexuality is of course a far greyer range than the media, or most chaps for that matter, would allow us all to believe.

I wrote to the authors of that particular essay a stiff rebuttal

Is that homophobia or simply an expression of taste though?

Male sexuality is of course a far greyer range than the media, or most chaps for that matter, would allow us all to believe.

So when can I start my magazine "Straight Times"?

Male sexuality is of course a far greyer range than the media, or most chaps for that matter, would allow us all to believe.

Personally? I've never hated gays, be they men or women. What I do hate is the overtly camp portrayal in the media of gay people (Graham Norton et al) that says that all gay people are "camp", sex obsessed, go on rainbow marches and conform to the stereotype of gays.

It's not homophobia - a homophobic (as you all know, but anyway) is someone who finds the idea of same-sex couples so abhorrent that he or she commits an assault on them. I'm not even sure someone who finds the idea of gay people together disgusting can even be called prejudice as it's just an opinion, and it's their right to have it. As long as all they do is talk about it in a non-threatening manner, (and stick to "I don't like the idea of gay sex" rather than "I don't like the idea of gay people") I think that's perfectly acceptable behaviour.

Homophobia is a term for a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual. Definitions[1][2][3] of the term refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.

–noun
unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.

I have to admit that, whilst I have absolutely nothing against gay people at all, whether on 'biblical grounds' or for any other reason, I cannot help but find the actual act of two men having sex really repulsive and could never sit through a film depicting this - my personal choice. Even two men kissing turns my stomach to the core.

There again, I find the idea of 70 year old heterosexual people having sex as equally repugnant; doesn't make me 'ageist'.

Strangely, I don't feel the same way about two women having sex, although I don't go crazy for this like many blokes.

Probably all boils down to some social conditioning or other.

Would you feel the need (or right) to tell a gay man that you met that you found the thought of him and his partner having sex repulsive?

No, absolutely not, I wouldn't want to hurt his feelings.

Ironically, my best mate of 25 years is bi, and we've had quite a few discussions over the years. I've slept naked with him - in the same bed with no-one else in the same room - whilst on an 18-30 holiday a fair few years back, so I don't think I could be classed as homophobic! There was just never any question of sexual interaction.

Well that's my point there. You don't like to think about men having sex the way I don't particularly like the thought of a mixed couple having sex and both of us can agree that the thought of a pair of 70 year olds having sex is somewhere we never want our minds to go. Neither of us would feel the need upon meeting any of these people however, to tell them in a room full of people; sometimes upon first meeting them, and with no shame about what your saying or respect to the person you are saying it to that you find the thought of them and their partner together disgusting. It might not be on a huge scale but it is still unnecessary, in some cases and depending on the recipient it can be very hurtful and it is simply because that person is gay.

both of us can agree that the thought of a pair of 70 year olds having sex is somewhere we never want our minds to go

Personally, I love women's breasts, but if we boil it all down to a Doc G style analysis, I know they're simply concentrations of fat with a few other bits and bobs thrown in.

I guess we are all slaves to our entirely preordained, predetermined genetic programming and are, to a great extent 'helpless'?

Oh, I know mate. Valid point for discussion though?

If you met someone who told you the idea of two black people together was disgusting would you seriously not think they were racist?

Even if we decide that this sort of behaviour isn't homophobic, why should I have to put up with it and be exposed to it?

I look forward to reminding you of this in 40-something years.

Anyway, on the subject of hate... Y'know what I hate? Overt sexuality.

Kind of agreed. I think it's perfectly healthy and useful to talk about sex openly, but people who make their orientation or preferences their entire fucking identity are impossibly boring to me.

Yes, but that's a completely different thing, as two black people having a bang aren't going to be doing anything different than two white people together. Being gay does make you different to a straight person in a sexual sense (and I assume we are talking about a purely 'sexual' together, rather than just 'sitting in a pub' together).

Even if we decide that this sort of behaviour isn't homophobic, why should I have to put up with it and be exposed to it?

Because it's an opinion, and everyone is entitled to it. Yes, they're insensitive dicks for saying things like that in front of you, but it's possible to say it entirely without malice (as Cavey did a few posts above).
I do understand that people expressing themselves about something that's a big part of what you are can get to you - Hell, I'm a (rubbish) Christian and you've probably seen how discussions about that go on this forum, but I wouldn't want people to think they couldn't express their opinion around me. Granted, I've not been submitted to any real long-term persecution because of that, so I freely admit that I don't have the understanding that you do, but that doesn't change my opinion on, er, opinions.

(Don't think I'm ignoring all the other stuff you've written about how people treat you, that fucking sucks, and I'd be among the first to stand in front you when idiots start throwing stones, but that's not what I was getting at)

Mimi,

I was typing that as you posted. Do you have mates in the theatre then?

disgusted by the thought... (like I am with the thought of eating mashed potato)

You're assuming free will even exists. Consider the brain as a physical system, where inputs are consumed, neurons either fire or don't fire based on those inputs, and as a result of those neurons firing, you either do or don't do something. Now rewind the brain back to the state it was in previously, replay the inputs, and it has to do the exact same thing. So where does free will come from?

I believe it is over-simplistic in the extreme to draw a simple analogy between the two, being as they are inherently and inordinately different things.

I consider the human mind/self as being quasi-quantum and chaotic in nature, due to complexity and architecture (I appreciate that the real quantum world operates on a vastly smaller scale than even the bio-molecular level of the brain)

(And that's before one even begins to consider metaphysical and philosophical factors, such as the (much greater) unconscious brain, what it is that makes us sentient, the role of conscience and, dare I say it, the human soul)

Like all matters of faith, you quickly run into "that's just how I believe things are".

Which, of course, is what you're pre-programmed to believe.

You can't prove faith, by definition. You couldn't have faith in a God that had been proven to exist; it's not faith then.

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

""Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. "

Tsk you missed out the punchline

Always loved that joke, but if you think it through, it makes no logical sense (the zebra crossing bit) at
all.

OK. How about defining free will as having the freedom to apply your own set of internal values, instinctive reactions, and opinions to a situation without the influence of external factors?

The fact that you might, in a 100% repeatable scenario, apply those values/reactions/opinions in exactly the same way doesn't stop it being free will.

You can always choose to ignore your values/opinions/instincts to skew the results, but who does that?

I'm not really concerned with the valildity of that comparison; more about the predictability of the human brain. Consider if I am wrestling with an important question, such as whether to vote Lib Dem, Conservative, or Labour in the general election. I lie awake all night turning it over in my mind, weighing up the pros and cons, and then in the morning I place a cross in a box.

The question is, could a hypothetical, sufficiently advanced observer who somehow could model my brain with perfect accuracy have told me at 9pm that night who I would vote for? It doesn't matter that such an observer doesn't exist. What matters is, if it did, and it can predict my response: where has my free will entered into it? When did I make a decision?

And if it cannot predict my response: why?

No, you will always choose to ignore your values/opinions/instincts to skew the results in certain situations.

Yes, if you're aware your free will is being tested. But in everyday life?

In a study published Sunday in Nature Neuroscience, researchers using brain scanners could predict people's decisions seven seconds before the test subjects were even aware of making them.

The decision studied -- whether to hit a button with one's left or right hand -- may not be representative of complicated choices that are more integrally tied to our sense of self-direction. Regardless, the findings raise profound questions about the nature of self and autonomy: How free is our will? Is conscious choice just an illusion?

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist.

Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet's theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes' study has.

In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.

Taken together, the patterns consistently predicted whether test subjects eventually pushed a button with their left or right hand -- a choice that, to them, felt like the outcome of conscious deliberation. For those accustomed to thinking of themselves as having free will, the implications are far more unsettling than learning about the physiological basis of other brain functions.

Caveats remain, holding open the door for free will. For instance, the experiment may not reflect the mental dynamics of other, more complicated decisions.

"Real-life decisions -- am I going to buy this house or that one, take this job or that -- aren't decisions that we can implement very well in our brain scanners," said Haynes.

Also, the predictions were not completely accurate. Maybe free will enters at the last moment, allowing a person to override an unpalatable subconscious decision.

"We can't rule out that there's a free will that kicks in at this late point," said Haynes, who intends to study this phenomenon next. "But I don't think it's plausible."

That implausibility doesn't disturb Haynes.

"It's not like you're a machine. Your brain activity is the physiological substance in which your personality and wishes and desires operate," he said.

The unease people feel at the potential unreality of free will, said National Institutes of Health neuroscientist Mark Hallett, originates in a misconception of self as separate from the brain.

"That's the same notion as the mind being separate from the body -- and I don't think anyone really believes that," said Hallett. "A different way of thinking about it is that your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing."

Hallett doubts that free will exists as a separate, independent force.

"If it is, we haven't put our finger on it," he said. "But we're happy to keep looking."

Read More #ixzz0jCcchZtJ">http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... z0jCcchZtJ