was bissexuality normal before civilization?
was it the religious pricks who started saying men are only meant for women, and women are only meant for men?
(by the way, i´ve never been with a men, but im certainly curious to know what it would be like... the only thing that keeps me from doing it is that I feel totally disgusted when I think about touching certain parts of a man, i don´t think I can do it...)
2006-08-30
07:35:00
·
23 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Anthropology
sorry for the misspeling. TABOO, not tabu
2006-08-30
07:53:25 ·
update #1
commenting some answers
FROM KALUUKA
"It is not wrong because "religious pricks" said that, "
well, that´s what I´m trying to find out
"you future gay,"
nope, not gay... maybe future bissexual...
"it is wrong because it is against nature, against life. "
haha, says who?
"and the proof to you is this digusting feeling when u just think about this stuff."
well, that´s our instintics... haha, it´s funny how sometimes the "religious pricks" say that one should follow ones instincs, and sometimes one should fight against it, hahaha
Answer this:"
Are u prepared and willing someday to tell your son that you were envolved in a homosexual activity? what a shame..."
well, i´d actually be proud to tell him that... but unfortunally i´m not sure if it´s ever going to happen
2006-08-30
23:11:53 ·
update #2
FROM LARRY ORC
"Religious pricks", eh?
quite, quite
"Got any more predjuices you care to explain?"
it´s no prejudice... anyone who limits the freedom of others is a prick
"So you're homophobic and yet your curious?"
homophobic? dude, i´ve never said that... you should look this word up on the dictionary
"Bisexual people are the most unhappy people in the world- for they're trying to please two sets of people, neither who want to accept the others lifestyle."
hahhaha, says who? I think the bisexual are probally the happiest people in the world... but this is just a guess
2006-08-30
23:17:32 ·
update #3
Ok - if you feel disgusted by parts of men, then don't bother trying to have sex with them... just my opinion...
Now on to your question:
Yes, before Europe (paricularly Greece and Rome) became Christianized it was very common for people to be bisexual. The same in Native American cultures... in fact, there are tribes in North America that used to hold gay people in very high esteem over the other tribesman because they were considered to have ALL of the qualities of nature, both male and female...
Christianity and Muslim beliefs have been enforcing moral code since they began and do not approve of homosexuality in any form... however, one must keep in mind that these religions also claim that all sins are equal so any sex outside of the purpose of procreation is considered just as immoral (or by some to be "taboo").
2006-08-30 07:44:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by rabble rouser 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
"Religious pricks", eh?
Got any more predjuices you care to explain?
So you're homophobic and yet your curious?
Suck on your thumb, what does it taste like? Skin right?
So, now you know what both men and women taste like right? How do they smell? If you say "They smell like me cause I'm human" once again, you get it right.
Bisexual people are the most unhappy people in the world- for they're trying to please two sets of people, neither who want to accept the others lifestyle.
Only 4% of the population is gay- and the average gay male is roughly 36 years old, white, and makes over 50,000 a year. This is NOT the typical cross section of people which are now hispanic and straight in the United States- yet people feel this group of people should be given "special rights"?
Why? They make more money than most people per captia income; they're better educated with an average of a BS degree than the average person, they have just happened to chose a lifestyle that most people have refused.
Unless you're in prison YOU make the decision sexually what YOU want to do.
2006-08-30 08:36:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It differs with each society, I think. Everyone always cites the ancient Greeks and Romans as being sexually liberal (honoring homosexuality as pure), but I'd also like to add in ancient Japan as well (up to around the Edo period). In fact, it was the Christian influence coming in that made Japan the more sexually strict nation that most have come to know. And, in fact, there is talk about more open sexuality among Japanese youth today; so, in effect, they're going back to the way they were historically. Homosexuality in Asia has been recognized since the dawn of time, actually. In a lot of societies, there are also third gender designations, such as in India and Thailand. These are deemed acceptable by Buddhist traditions.
As for religion, I wouldn't go around blaming it for the taboo, because not all religions are unaccepting of it (such as, as I have stated above, Buddhism). And as for you, personally, your disgust is perfectly natural, and perfectly acceptable. Just don't judge others who don't share it.
2006-08-30 09:21:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Qchan05 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Romans were "switch hitters" from day one. After the Emperor Constantine there were struggles in the early Christian church trying to distiguish it from pagen religions. Starting about 340 AD some of the important bedrock principles of Christian ideology such as the Trinity, virginity and the definition of sin were still being established for the morality we know today becoming finalized by 1300 AD.
We have hormones so that we will reproduce. The sexual attraction begins in the brain and will magnify itself to actual acts. Morality, per se, is a learned condition, but important to transmit culture across generations.
2006-08-30 07:47:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
i like how you are curious and disgusted at the same time
Almost all primitive cultures had some sort of taboo against homosexuality, even though some (like the Greeks) accepted it. I think straight males have an instinctive dislike for homosexuality as a means to preventing themselves from turning homosexual themselves... evolutionarily speaking, heterosexuals that avoided "turning gay" were probably more likely to procreate. Just a theory.
2006-08-30 07:39:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by s_e_e 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
bisexuality and homosexuality were very common in the ancient world. the spartains encouraged homosexuality because they believed the soldiers would fight harder to save a lover than a friend. Rome had a cross-dressing emperor as well as a few that married men. when christianity gained prominence it quickly was stamped out.
2006-08-31 03:59:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I find the concept of gay sex interesting in regards to the fact that the Romans, who founded a gigantic empire and who many homosexual-degrading cultures of today descended from had gay lovers. In fact, it was stranger to be heterosexual than bisexual. In ancient Rome, there was no words in their language that distinguished people from being homosexual or heterosexual. Religion in Western hemisphere (of the old world) played a huge part in condoning homosexual activities. Many homosexual references in the bible were ommitted in later publishings, including two matryrs killed in Rome who were believed to be married and in a homosexual relationship.
Many religions in the east and many cultures in the east are more tolerant and accepting of homosexual activities, mainly because there were no rules about condoning homosexual activities in their religious scriptures.
2006-08-30 11:19:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Janelle B 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is not wrong because "religious pricks" said that, you future gay, it is wrong because it is against nature, against life. and the proof to you is this digusting feeling when u just think about this stuff.
Answer this:
Are u prepared and willing someday to tell your son that you were envolved in a homosexual activity? what a shame...
2006-08-30 22:56:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Kalooka 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
The question of Sexuality requires a relative moral "Yard-Stick" in order for societies to measure or judge what is wrong or right behaviour/conduct that defines the borders of that society.
There are generally two schools of thought for who has the legitimate right to set this moral “Yard stick”, namely the theist ideology and the atheist ideology.
The atheist ideology claims that no creator exists therefore “man” himself has the right to dictate his own moral “Yard Stick”.
The Theist ideology claims that a creator exists and as such it is only the creator who can legitimately set the morel standard.
If we take a closer look into these two thoughts, we can rationally see that the atheistic model expands numerous logically problems on the question of morality.
(a) If “man” can set his own moral standard then, one mans moral standard will infringe on another mans moral standard and vice versa.
(b) Man is subject to change, therefore his moral standard can have no permanency, what is invalid today can be valid tomorrow and vice versa.
(c) Mans knowledge and understanding is limited, therefore moral standard will be subject to error.
If we can contrast this with theistic model of morality we can see the following:
(a) Having one moral standard equal to all, means that all men are measured from the same yardstick therefore no infringement can occur.
(b) The creator is not subject to change, what is valid today will be valid tomorrow
(c) The creator’s knowledge is unlimited, therefore the moral standard ca not be subject to error.
Therefore it is vitally important that one, first rationally concludes as to which “camp” he/she belongs before one can accepting which moral code to follow.
Once that is settled one can then choose, to either follow a moral code that is fixed and valid for both today and tomorrow, or choice have no fixed moral code and change it at will, thus making what is invalid today valid tomorrow. For example, homosexuality was once morally unacceptable, but due to changing morality it has now become acceptable (amongst secular atheistic societies). Therefore it is not inconceivable that what we find morally inconceivable today can not become the “norm” tomorrow. Take for example paedophilia or incest or any current modern taboo’s, if we follow the atheistic model of morality in theory there is no reason as to why in the future this can not become acceptable.
I hope that helps
Anhar Hussain Miah
2006-08-30 08:11:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
for my area i does not like having intercourse with the comparable intercourse as no right this moment individual would. So I dont think of somebody right this moment will intentionally have those style of kin with the comparable intercourse human beings. yet once you go with to try this, you already understand you're gay or bi. compelled intercourse is extra probably to suppress your sexual choose fairly than increasing it. yet once you start up up liking it after that's compelled upon you, it comes lower back to you like it, and you recognize what if so.
2016-12-17 19:50:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋