Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5

ДЛЯ ПОДТВЕРЖДЕНИЯ, ЧТО ВЫ СТАРШЕ 18-ТИ, ПОЖАЛУЙСТА, АВТОРИЗИРУЙТЕСЬ ЧЕРЕЗ ВК
Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 book. Happy reading Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 Pocket Guide.

You're such a big Fan that you actually wanted to sign up a 2nd time. Congratulations, you're a fan! But don't worry, we aren't charging you again. Please check back again in the future when you can become a Fan. The Pornhub team is always updating and adding more porn videos every day. We have a huge free DVD selection that you can download or stream. Pornhub is the most complete and revolutionary porn tube site. We offer streaming porn videos, downloadable DVDs, photo albums, and the number 1 free sex community on the net. We're always working towards adding more features that will keep your love for porno alive and well.

For the safety and privacy of your Pornhub account, remember to never enter your password on any site other than pornhub.

Product description

Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 [Dick Powers] on linawycatuzy.gq *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Out of this world sexy, this series of 4 short stories for the. Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 - Kindle edition by Dick Powers. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like.

For your safety and privacy, this link has been disabled. Start My Free Week No thanks. To view the video, this page requires javascript to be enabled. Login or sign up. Remember me on this computer not recommended on public or shared computers. Forgot Username or Password? Not a free member yet? Here's what you're missing out on! A text message with your code has been sent to: Didn't receive the code? Don't have your phone?

Create a new Playlist. Please enter the required information. Sign in to add this to a playlist. Sign in to remove this from recommended. You are now leaving Pornhub. Go Back You are now leaving Pornhub. Accidental Cum Shots 2. World Class Spread Gay Stables 5. War of Cocks King of Cocks Novella. He Drove Me Nuts. Doctor And Patient Sex. Ass Tickling Mansion Gay Stables 2. Devil 'Wicked Love' Gay Erotica. The Collection 2 Stories Warrior 'Ass Robber' Gay Erotica. Ass Passion Gay Stables Hard Gay XXX 3: A Night At Mike's Bar 7: A Bottle In Harry's Butt. Men In Uniform Collection 1.

Gay Wedding Oral Sex. Collection 1 4 Erotic Stories.

8 comments

Magician's Ass Friend Gay Stables 7. The Collection 3 Stories 9 to The Collection 2 Stories 5 to 8. A Night At Mike's Bar: Oral, Anal, Public, Drunk and More. Cultist 'Worshipful Sexuality' Gay Erotica. Third Wheel Collection 1. How to write a great review. The review must be at least 50 characters long. The title should be at least 4 characters long. Your display name should be at least 2 characters long. At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information.

You submitted the following rating and review. We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them. Item s unavailable for purchase. Please review your cart. You can remove the unavailable item s now or we'll automatically remove it at Checkout. Continue shopping Checkout Continue shopping. I know plenty of gay-identified men who are attracted to and sometimes sleep with women on the down low including some of the most vocal monosexist, essentials too. Why thank you for the shout-out to my Sexualities article, Jane!

I really appreciate this piece. More people need to be talking about this! And the Cynthia Nixon angle on this is so important — my article had already gone through the final copyediting when Ms. Nixon first talked about how she came to date women! I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this and other topics. I think there are some accurate and important points here. Starting with the title of the very first section: Moreover, the overall point of the piece — that no one should have to justify their right to have consensual sex with whomever they want — it absolutely spot on.

Whether there is a biological or genetic component should be totally irrelevant to the argument — freedom can be reasonably denied if and only if the exercise of that freedom in some way negatively affects other people. This is a pretty big one. The article is trying to look at this issue objectively, scientifically, rationally. But of course, that is reversing cause and effect. Sex is how we reproduce. That predates love by about 3 billion years.

Sex feels good because that is natures way of enticing us to do it. It is associated with love because human infants are particularly vulnerable and have better chances of survival with two parents. There is no moral element to it. In fact, I am a huge fan of non-reproductive sex, both personally, and as a general philosophy.

I am merely pointing out that the whole reason sex even exists is to continue the specie. That is not really debatable. To argue otherwise is doing exactly the same thing that the author is arguing against: There have been a few interesting investigation into homosexuality in non-human species. But what is perhaps most notable of all is that there are almost zero examples of any specie where a significant portion of the population is exclusively homosexual.

All of the animals that engage is homosexual sex on occasion also have reproductive i. Because one particular study does conflate the two does not condemn science, nor even gender science. Any one researcher is just a human, and they are subject to error and bias and misunderstanding. Science is the culmination of many different people working in different fields in different cultures, sharing ideas, running experiments, and getting closer to the truth.

The characterization of homosexuality in ancient Greece is… inaccurate, at best. A few key points: So, yes, men of power and means did sometimes have non-penetrative sexual contact with male children, which in our modern society would be considered a form of homosexuality. This seems to be commentary on the results of studies that have attempted to measure individuals genital response to various stimuli, in an attempt to circumvent the culture influence present in subjects self-reporting what they find stimulating.

They then showed their volunteers various different types of erotica, and noted how their physical reaction lined up with their self-reported sexuality or not. The results were that most men responded physically to images of naked women, some responded to images of naked men, and very few if any responded to both — even those men who self-reported as bi. In contrast, most women responded physically to both, regardless of how they self-identified.

None of it suggested that anyone would be repulsed by anyone. As to the comment on porn — um… huh? What porn have you been watching that gives the implication that women are turned on by everything? Speaking of which, the idea that porn drives at least male desires is demonstrably false. Which should be the least bit surprising, going back to my first point that the whole reason we even have a desire for sex is because its our species way of reproducing.

Her anecdote completely confirms the hypothesis she disagrees with. Allow me to fill in the other half. I grew up immersed in queer culture, from marching in the annual parade to summer camps where all of the counselors and all of the parents were gay. Sexuality may be innate, but moralizing sexuality is a purely human social construct.

Including prenty of our most deeply held beliefs. If anyone ever wants to spend some time challenging their own biases and learning more about their own mind and that of humanity, may I recommend http: I like the concept of what this article was going for. Remove the predetermined conclusion, look at the same questions with a fully open mind, and we will all be more likely to discover the truth waiting underneath.

We believe this reveals a lot about a person, including what happened to them in the womb. The transformation from heterosexual sex acts to heterosexual personage is a modern development, one linked to economic and cultural developments in the 17thth centuries, and one well documented by historians like Michel Foucault and Jonathan Katz. I understand the distinction you are making. I acknowledge and agree with you. It brings up additional related questions of language — how do we concisely distinguish between sexuality as a collection of behaviors, sexuality as an inner attraction, and sexuality as an identity, in order to have discussions like this without the misunderstanding I made here?

But extemporaneous hypothesizing really adds nothing to the discussion. And the idea that Katz puts forth is a highly debated, and actually rejected by the majority of ancient history antropologists and sociologists, as a well written theory based on a poorly established foundation. No one knows — for sure — whether we were literally born with our sexual orientation, and no one knows for sure to what extent, if anything, genetics or epigenetics plays a role in a tendency to either be gay at birth or become gay if certain environmental cues are present.

But, having a background in genetics including human genetics, I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that there is at least SOME contribution to at least a tendency to become gay, straight, or bi. But we will NEVER know these things, if people who clearly misunderstand modern human genetics are allowed to shut down the conversation in the way this author does. Genetically complex traits, such as multi-locus traits and epigenetic phenomena, only complicate the picture further.

It is simply that most of those studies take heterosexuality to be normative. The science of sexuality is hampered by an inability to precisely determine who has which traits. Societal pressures to conform, and perhaps other sociological phenomena,have limited our ability to determine the actual biological contribution to ones sexual orientation, and the ability of subsequent influences to modify it. This is a huge hindrance, which likely will mean that good animal models will have to be developed first, then applied to the human situation.

For example, in sociology we look at a variety of different life outcomes, for example, lifetime educational achievement. Obviously, among many other significant predictors, are gender, race, and also social geographic factors: Similarly, in some of my research, I have found that urbanicity at age 16 does impact increase the reporting of same-sex sexual behavior.

This is just common sense: If you live in an urban area, you are more likely to be able to find potential sexual partners no doubt we can theorize some other additional reasons for the increased likelihood of same-sex sexual behavior associated with urbanicity. Human beings are not much different from billiard balls: If we have enough underlying data, we can predict the outcome. And, the fact that human beings are simply giant meat machines, this obviously creates problems: Theoretically speaking, no one is responsible for their behavior….

Also, influence does not always affect outcome; a person can follow societal pressures or resist them. I would call that choice. I found this to be an interesting and well-thought-out article, and I agree with its arguments. However, I disagree with the statements made about ancient Greece. In ancient Greece, homosexual relations were considered appropriate only in limited circumstances, particularly that free adult men must play the dominant role, and boys and slaves the submissive role.

It was cultural taboo in ancient Greece for 2 adult free men to engage in homosexual intercourse, much as it is taboo in our culture for middle-aged men to have sexual intercourse with pre-teen children. This goes on in many cultures as a show of power and has a kind of acceptance as being something other than homosexuality. I think the thing that is missing in this biology versus choice dichotomy is psychology. You acknowledge it in your post-script. Some psychological forces can be pretty firmly fixed, regardless of whether they stem from nature or nurture.

I, on the other hand, have been attracted to guys since I was 4, which happens to be as long as I can remember for me. You realize about the closet cases in this society? And while highly developed, humans are still animals. I have as much choice to like someone as my cat does when she is in heat. I know tiny children have sexual sensations, I can recall mine, but directing them at a fixed particular person or group of people is stretching my memory of being a tiny person beyond limits. So Yannick, you are now equating human behavior and sexuality to a cat in heat.

What is interesting to me about this thread is that it seems many commenters extrapolate from this sexual system—a system that celebrated sex between powerful, adult men and disempowered young boys—that homosexuality was somehow not normative or widespread. As I stated in a response above, I am making a distinction here between homosexual sex practices homosexuality and gay identity. There was no gay identity in Ancient Greece. As Eve Sedgwick describes at length, male homosexuality is now associated with feminization and a loss of male power; but in the Athenian system, homosexuality and patriarchy shared a harmonious relationship.

Today, most of us probably disapprove of the form that homosexual sex took in Ancient Greece, but as Foucault, Sedgwick, and Katz have demonstrated, these sex practices were revered in the Athenian context. And, they were revered by men of the highest standing in Athenian society, no less.

I raise Ancient Greece in the context of thinking about brain organization science as it relates to homosexual desire. If we believe homosexual desire is the outcome of a culturally-neutral genetic predisposition or some other physiological process that occurs in utero, we should expect that this explanatory theory will be able to account for homosexual desire as it occurs across time and place.

If only elite, free men could engage in homosexual sex without suffering stigma, did these men happen, by great coincidence, to be born into their elite standing AND born with the capacity for homosexual desire? The point here is that homosexual sex often plays a significant role in cultural rights and rituals and in the social and economic organization of various societies. Across time and place, people are compelled by their social and cultural context to engage in different sexual systems, to desire or not various sex practices, and to feel these desires as natural expressions of their selfhood.

That this is the case raises many questions about the likelihood that homosexual desire is physiologically hardwired. As you pointed out earlier, its important to distinguish between sexuality as a set of behaviors, an identity, and an feeling of attraction. In cultures in which homosexuality is not fully accepted, men who feel sexually attracted exclusively to men frequently maintain sexual relationships with women, because that is what is expected of them. Just because we know it was acceptable does not mean it was widespread. Assuming that it was common for elite males to take advantage of this opportunity, it could just as easily be an indication of a much larger degree of inborn pedophilia than we admit in our culture.

Pre-adolescent boys are not interchangeable with adult men. Many, if not most, true pedophiles are not attracted to adults, of either gender. There was such a thing as homosexuality in ancient Greece — as in, men who desired MUTUAL sexual contact with other adult men — and it was looked down on just as much as in other cultures. Male homosexuality was just as much associated with feminization and a loss of male power then as now probably more — for the receiving partner.

One portion of it may have to do with actually getting ones rocks off, but it also seems to be about power and domination. Part of the appeal is precisely because it DOES emasculate the receiving partner. Does any of this indicate that all of the men in ancient Greece got erections from looking at hot naked men from puberty or earlier? They and all lot of people are referring to sexual attraction, an internal feeling.

Yes, anyone can choose to engage in genital contact with anyone and anything: But, as demonstrated by porn actors, prostitutes, women with low self-esteem and men trying to prove something to their buddies, people engage in sex acts for plenty of reasons other than genuine sexual attraction. You completely have missed the point. Homosexual attraction is a modern day construct. Sexual attraction is a human construct. The article makes sense, and it could be accurate, or it could be wrong, but neither it, nor anyone here, nor anyone anywhere, is making the claim that sexual attraction is a human construct.

What would that even mean? Do you honestly think that if not for human culture, no one would ever want to have sex with other people? I tend to believe a purely social constructionist approach is ludicrous. Nevertheless, some people do still make that argument. One really has to wonder, though, how these people explain to themselves the fact that proto-humans somehow managed to reproduce before the advent of language or society any other form of culture, or how solitary species have sex at all, or why there are no cultures in which no one ever experiences any form of sexual arousal, or how people born blind and deaf or infants experience sexual arousal, or… or… well, in short, I mean, come on, seriously?

Do people have control over those factors? Can people choose which factors will make them straight or gay? I get the feeling that this author is an avid reader of Reason Magazine. She wants to say that sexuality is a matter of choice. How icky-libertarian can you get? Lots of men do. Your point, besides being crude, is also pointless. This article was obviously crafted to support a personal belief at some expense to science. It seems to have been effective, and resulted in much thought provoking discussion.

Or is it possible that there is something to be understood by hearing well stated and honest debate on both sides? If not, why are comments even enabled? Gannett so wonderfully put it, strikes you as kneejerk reactionary, so be it.

Be a #TRENDJETTER!

If you and Mr. Gannett think his attempt to outrage and point out a lack of choice at the same time is well put, I disagree and fail to see where his statement truly addresses any of the arguments made in the post. Gannett continues to make weirdly personal experiences the definition of gay. See his post after yours. This statement sounds remarkably personal. No One is Born Gay or Straight: The science is wrong.

We have no proven scientific explanations about the origins of sexuality. OK, the seven-year-olds who—these days, famously—proclaim themselves gay, obviously do so because some kind of enviro factor got to them. Something happened to them after birth. We all know that parents worry about their kids getting queered via shady friends or men in raincoats down the street, and that this is what makes them gay, and ruins them for life. This is really fascinating. There is an element of truth according to some experts. But it IS pretty damn sensational in terms of folk fear. Sex researchers—Alfred Kinsey and C.

Tripp—have found that sexually fulfilling same-sex experiences in early adolescence can influence sexual orientation in adulthood. How incendiary is that? How much effect does that have, though? Is that a choice? Such factors are very complex as complex and various are the paths of sexual attraction. Such environmental factors are shuffled and uncontrollable. At most it can influence potentially bisex people in embracing their homo sides, instead of choosing not to be aroused by the same sex.

Here Are 5 Reasons Why purposefulfornow. Here Are 5 Reasons Why Joie de vivre, shocks of beauty. I surf the ocean of sexuality. I think this is probably the case. It would seem to suggest that women in general do have a degree of choice about sexual preference. More than men do, that is. The basic issue though: Is bisexuality a choice? Do people make conscious, deliberative decisions about who attracts them? It could be that some people do. What we know about THAT particular can of worms does not engender confidence that sexuality is a choice. I believe in free will. I also believe that sexuality is something not yet explained.

How do we explain personality? Is personality a choice? What would Sigmund Freud say about the idea that personality is a choice? After reading this article I found myself thinking more about sexuality in general. Many points were raised about sexual orientation but i find it interesting that so many other unexplainable and phenomenal aspects about sexuality go unquestioned.

Are we predisposed to these sort of sexual preferences or do social factors play more of a role? Does age play a role, as people evolve with their bodies and hormones? It is one of those things in nature that is hard to pin down and varies from person to person. I do believe there are some consistencies of course but I find it dangerous to pose a clear answer to something as complex and changing as sexuality.

Not a free member yet?

Our society has evaluated homosexuality as a characteristic and according to modern measure. I guess nothing stays the same. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. The basic issue though: I can never imagine myself with a woman.

A friend of mine read this and got very upset, as though it were an attack on gays and those that feel they were born gay, even suggesting that the article legitimized the ex-gay therapy. I read the article in full this round as well as some comments and I do not see where it explicitly validates ex-gay therapy. It may have to be a certain set of circumstances as I imagine we have all heard examples of but may not have experienced ourselves. We may be designed born to have the capacity for heterosexual or homosexuality, and it may be as the result of our experiences as infants or adults, or hormonal responses to our environment, or whatever.

Encouraging people to think more about the possibilities and explaining the dynamics that many are not aware of is ultimately a good thing. But it is also not unethical to suggest that a deeply held believe by a society or a group within society i. How many times throughout all of mankind has it been proved that that very phenomenon has happened in human history?

It would be dangerous to believe that everything we think or know now may eventually never be proven incorrect. If we are to evolve society intellectually then we should encourage unbiased questioning and as open minded and accepting thinking as possible. Taking it personally and holding onto our beliefs at the expense of our intellectual integrity not only sets us up for a major bout of cognitive dissonance, it also traps us into a potential dangerous mindset.

One day our survival species could depend on how we think collectively as a society, just as today our own personal ways of thinking can mean our success or failure during our own lifetimes. I hope we evolve someday to a society that is accepting of gays that also knows why people are gay and celebrates that phenomenon no matter what the reason.

If we truly take pride in who we are then the one does not have to come at the expense of the other. No one is born gay or straight. Well, that might be true. Ejaneward might well be a thoroughly brilliant and laudable person and I bet she is. But her argument is so weak. This really does open the door to reparative therapy, which has been thoroughly discredited leaders sighted in gay bars, taking young gay men to Europe, etc.

Hot gay 5 inch - linawycatuzy.gq

I go back to my little parable about personality. You can interpret this a few ways. For all of these examples, they are potential choices based on our instincts, and we fight our instincts all the time and instincts are not necessarily wrong or right. What makes them wrong or right is based on what we believe will benefit our individual selves the most. And if you want to mention personality then I would say that who we are and who we identify as whether that be sexual or otherwise certainly is based on a collection of choices that we make.

When we emerge from the womb or test tube for all you clones! While it is very plausible that genetics and biological factors affect personality many clear examples of this in humans as well as other mammals we have the potential to be one of a hundred different personalities AND during that lifetime, our personalities can change as we mature and gain exposure to new ideas and influences.

Furthermore, our psychological states and thus personalities are affected by the food we eat, the chemicals that are used prescriptions, food additives, environmental chemicals, etc. The weather and our physical environment affects us — our activity levels, the types of activities we enjoy, the opportunities we have. And those external factors and many more affect us based on the choices that we make.

So based on this I could speculate that if personality is not predefined and if personality is not fixed throughout a single period of time nor all of time for an individual, and those states of personality are ultimately dictated in part by choices we make both internally and externally in addition to the influence and reciprocal influence of our environment, then why could sexuality have no relationship with the idea of choice?

I think the risks of associating the concepts of choice and sexual identity together in the modern day is why many of us reject those theories altogether. But I think the main point of this write up overall as referenced in the beginning is that there is a lot of political focus on sexuality being a result of strictly biological processes or mechanisms. Until we have hard scientific evidence, I think that if you look at this from a broader perspective and consider the many possibilities of how human sexuality is developed, it is not necessary to feel that one theory is mutually exclusive to all the others.

Whatever the cause of the phenomenon, I think most gay people and their proponents agree that it is a natural process and not one that we necessarily actively have influence on. But from an academic perspective as someone who craves knowledge and learning, it does make me sad that we are not in an enlightened enough time where this broader discourse can take place safely in public, even within the gay community.

You could also argue that I am seeing what I want to see when reading the OP, as could you be which is perfectly okay in the end. I would say then that although not articulated or qualified exactly as I see it, I do see the reason in her arguments so I personally do not feel they lack basis but perhaps instead are raw ideas that need additional consideration and refining…and unfortunately, politicizing if they are to be considered further in the larger population.

Homosexuality, like an idea of a creator or God which is not the same thing as religion , has existed since humans have, universally. The only other universal things humans share are their emotions. The idea that sexuality relies solely on social or contextual environment also leaves a lot to be desired. As is true with any potential in our nature, it is the mixture of the environment, the biology, and the perceptions of a person that create their personality and shape their desires.

Perhaps any person is capable of loving another, when given the opportunity to openly know and care for them. Perhaps the soul is eternal and sexless. Perhaps if we believe we have an eternal soul, we live more lives than this one. Everything that exists in nature is in the process of becoming something else. It seems a likely hypothesis this happens with spirits, too. Perhaps we have been men, and women, and ultimately this too plays into the lives we lead. Thanks for a provocative article. Nat, I like your style, and it prompts a couple of observations about the great Alfred C.

Kinsey and his famous but underappreciated scale, 0 to 6, with 0 representing exclusively heterosexual behavior and 6 representing exclusively homosexual behavior, the intervening numbers representing gradations in between. Two things about the Kinsey scale are really important. He cared about what people actually DID, sexually speaking.

Might people be born with a propensity for thinking that members of their own gender are hot? Are pink boys socially constructed? Or born that way? Maybe the only thing that matters is what they do with their lives, wherever perched on the K scale. I have always quietly wondered, why does it matter if sexual orientation is biologically determined or not?

I say that we fall in love with the person, not the gender. We are attracted to someone for reasons that are not always scientific or logical. Does it truly matter other than for political reasons? For me, I just want us, as a society, to move past the arguing and get to a place of true equality for all. Thank you for posting this piece: A nice video, very thoughtful.

I have to say, though, that I for one would like to know if I was born gay. Why not be curious about something so fundamental? No is born liking sweet things? Reblogged this on Astigmatic Revelations. The author proceeded with their attack in the wrong way. Take a look at Dr. Well said and I agree with your reasoning. For me I was born in one of a family of four sisters me being the only boy as far as I can look back I had an attraction to men only — my point here is because I was in a predominantly female household is that the reason I became gay? Was I born this way?

Or more I just prefer men. I enjoyed reading your reply and I disagree only on one point. People seek to make their live as they see fit, often heedless to the consequences to others. Many individuals, men in particular, are repulsed by the presence of gay folk. They will attack and we must defend. While you make sound points in some of your statements, I am loathe to agree with the general direction of this article. Whether or not we are born this way is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

I do agree with your statement referring to cultural and psychological influence to a degree; however, I reason that it is sub-conscious and an ingrained part of our psych. The conversion therapies were brutal, regardless of their near non-existent success rates. Bringing up that topic in the perspective you provided is tasteless. But wait a second. I recall recent reports in nonacademic press about linkage of personality traits to brain characteristics that in theory might be inheritable. So maybe, Anthony was born a sexist asshole. How likely is it that people are born mental blank slates?

The blank-slate idea seems naive. THAT is a really interesting question. It seems to me that we may be born with in born biases, but that those biases can be overridden, reinforced and otherwise seriously shaped by after-birth experience. The real me is who I am with all my experiences and predelictions and traits, which I have developed since conception. If you want an eye-opening glimpse into the world of gay male misogyny, check out the homepage of Homosexuals Intransigent! They argue that not only do lesbians and gay men have nothing in common, their interests are in fact diametrically opposed.

As strange as this may seem to Americans, it is apparently still the norm in some parts of the world, as I discovered when I studied abroad in Germany, where women are not allowed in gay bars. People like what they like. Nat, Thank you for your comment on May I agree with you. All sorts of outcomes are possible, in other words. One could be born with genetic or androgen or whatnot predisposition to gay and end up a lusty hetero Lothario, depending.

My hunch, which is all it can be, is that natural selection has created the potential for same-sex attraction and behavior because it conveys a survival benefit. How else to explain homosexuality throughout the animal world? Does anything in evolution happen by accident? But not, probably, on so broad a scale. I think you give genetic predisposition to anything too much credit.

Some of us follow our predispositions, some of us fight or redirect. And then those battles fold back on themselves, over and over, across our lives. A conservative or a liberal? A parent or a child? On the other hand, those pieces are often neither inborn nor within our conscious control, however much psychotherapy and meditation we undertake.

  1. Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5 eBook: Dick Powers: linawycatuzy.gq: Kindle Store.
  2. Get A Copy!
  3. Playlists Containing: Hard.. not to laugh ! (Gay bloopers).
  4. Hard.. not to Laugh ! (gay Bloopers) - linawycatuzy.gq.
  5. See a Problem??
  6. Hard Gay XXX #5: Jockey VS Trainer.
  7. The Young Mind?

We hang on and get as comfortable as we can…. Maybe this boy will experience a patchwork of sexualities as he gets older. Nothing, insofar as I know. More likely, this child is simply being himself. Does he have a choice? Could that be genetic? So could one divorce their wife for a blond simply because they were born attracted to blonds but married a brunet? I make choices everyday some. I enjoy metal-detecting but I get embarrassed sometimes because people look down on it and tend to mock me for it… but it was my choice because I enjoy it.

Comparing hair color and gender makes no sense.

Hard Gay XXX: Collection #5

I am a male and the idea of having sex with a female repulses me — probably straight guys feel the same way about having sex with another male. Hair color — not as big of a deal. Some people probably are gentically prone to obesity — others just eat alot for various reasons. I have felt this way for a long time. Social justice is an important area of study because it gets at the heart of what our lives in this culture are literally all about, namely mystified oppression. I usually avoid blogs because they tend to digress into verbal abuse; we must live with a lot of pent up anger that seems to justify itself when the words are separated from a face?

I made an exception this time because you are the first person to share my view. I think good writing justifies our thoughts. From studying this in university there is a strong correlation between genetics and sexuality however it is not an absolute percent correlation. Look at twin studies. It is determined that sexuality is based on genes and environment. If being homosexual is all based on society and environment then why does it occur in the following species?

Dante's Cove Season 1 Episode 1 - In The Beginning

Could you elaborate on how the existence of homosexual contact among animals means that sexuality is not subject to social, cultural, and social-psychological influences? Animal relations are also social. Even though I find it amusing. That concept is purely human religious moralizing and has no relation to the real world.

Sex is like chocolate cake. We all developed a taste for food in order to ensure we eat, and therefor we live. But we can take that system of reward and subvert it for pleasure with no nutritional value. Is it purely social pressure? I used to think so, but I doubt it now. Even Milo the penguin married a female penguin after his relationship with Roy ended. That is a different situation than humans primarily males who are attracted exclusively to their own sex. I have actually written about this exact topic several years ago, linked in my name on this comment.

I said ALL of them do. They are all bi. How many of those human male gays have sex with women because they are expected to? How many have sex with women even though they are not attracted to them? Dear Jacobaziza, Quite right, no need to name call. Back to the question of political expediency. This really puzzles me. The main empirical aspect concerns admittedly anecdotal reports of boys proclaiming themselves gay at very young ages. If some sort of enviro influence contributes to that kind of self-awareness, what is it? Insofar as I know there is no literature on the topic: Again, insofar as I know.

Speculation about enviro gay-genesis is therefore theoretical: