Iota

I'm not attempting to convince you, I'm posing a question which it seems several members are also interested or concerned about. 

Seeing as you're just another user like me, feel free to ignore my query so that it can be answered by someone more appropriate who isn't just another user like me. 

But remember: No. Public. Site. Is. Private. 

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

You agreed to the T&Cs upon registering. If you weren’t comfortable with those, you shouldn’t have clicked Agree amd proceeded. 

If that's the official position of scienceforums.net then I suppose that is that, then, isn't it. As you hold no corporate interests or responsibility in that sense, it may not be in your interest to provide your users with peace of mind or the option to opt out of being associated with your site. 

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

Maybe usernames could be manually changed by an Admin to “ALUMNI-NoLongerActive” or some similar. That would allow posts to remain and thread continuity to persist.

Perhaps profile info could be wiped clean, email removed, login deactivated  

But why?

I can think of many reasons as to why somebody might no longer want their email address attached to one of their old accounts. The reason as to "why" someone wishes to leave seems redundant from a user-friendliness perspective.  Also, if it is possible then "why not?" also comes to mind. Too much effort, I guess? Just seems bizarre that people can never leave. 

Surely it would be an option to allow users to delete their accounts without deleting their posts and answers. I'm sure other websites manage this; it just means said user's profile is no longer viewable and their email isn't plugged into the website and linked to the account. 

So you skillfully choose to address a minor point (and defend your position inadequately, at that) and completely ignore the key point of my post.

 

You have attributed to religion what is the consequence of the interplay of may factors of which religion is only one.

 

That attribution has these characteristics:

 

It is a gross simplification.

It is offensive.

It is ill considered.

It is - using the word literally - ignorant.

You're a mong

Evil is a subjective term, but by no means a default emotive. There's nothing wrong with my use of a subjective term in there, because I interjected a new point, clearly expressed as my opinion. You are the one who's erected a straw man here.

Consider revising your definitions, before throwing them around wrongly and at random, and wrongly dismissing others' arguments purely on that basis.

Non-terrorist muslims are probably not supposed to count as real muslims in the context of this discussion . Asking if Islam can be watered down under the premise that watered-down Koran readings do not count as Islam seems a bit mood to me. But apparently it still has enough volume for three pages of conversation.

Absolutely correct. You caught me, please keep this discussion as Islamophobic as possible and let's hope you geniuses don't catch on.

The problem isn't just with islam, it's religion generally. In the past there has been many people killed in the name of christianity and other religions. in this day and age the majority of christian countries have democracy, free speech and free trade where as the muslim countries usually don't.

Quite, and I agree completely. The problem is far from just Islam, and far from just religion. The reason I wanted to discuss Islam is because at present Islam is as radical as Christianity was generations ago. So I'm looking to discuss how it will integrate with modern Western society.

As for the rest of what you've said, I completely agree also.

You're trying to make the case that it is because of Islam that these countries are the way they are, rather than because they are several generations behind the west in terms of development. There's correlation here, but I haven't seen any evidence of causation. Mainly because you don't have to go far back to find Western countries behaving just as badly. It looks different when you compare based on when the country in question decided to embrace a (more) democratic form of governance.

I think it's a maturity issue, not a religious issue.

Nope, I'm trying to explore the effect Islam has had in those countries, to do with the way they are. It's different.

But as has already been explained and repeatedly pointed out to you, there is no single monolithic unidimensional version of Islam in the modern world. It differs in incredibly significant ways across regions and across individuals.

 

Well then we simply disagree here. It is plain to me that there are many vile teachings in the Quran, which are plain and are widely practiced, which I will hold Islam account for. Nothing is absolute or unidimensional, but that doesn't mean that because it isn't, we can't stretch or imaginations slightly, and quietly acknowledge that fact- and discuss the matter. If you want to be that incredibly anal, then fine, obviously the discussion will not be able to stand in that environment. But I don't see that any form of open discussion and sharing of opinions can exist, when individuals like yourself are incapable of the tiniest stretch of imagination or leniency- for the sake of argument- in order to do so.

Even when we step back and look directly at the texts of the holy book we find different people justifiably coming to different conclusions and having different interpretations of the exact same passages.

 

Yes, religion is baseless, none of it is proven, it all contradicts itself. So what? That's the nature of religion. I'm encompassing all of that when I say Islam, for the sake of argument, in order to discuss the bigger picture; to discuss the topic. Anyone can point out what you're doing, but whether that's a valid reason to therefore stop the discussion and dismiss the discussion on that basis, I find rather questionable, and almost deplorable.

You also start with several a priori assumptions and premises that have been directly challenged, and it's been pointed out to you that most of the things you describe as adverse effects are likely better attributed to other factors such as isolation, poverty, poor education, and lack of access to resources.

 

I addressed that point, I won't repeat myself again and again and again.

 

Finally, you're conflating Islam with extremism, and while there are clearly extremist elements within the population, they are by any measure the minority and not representative of the broader population. You would be similarly challenged if you tried to suggest that the Westboro Baptist Church was representative of Christianity as a whole, and asked us if "Christianity" could ever be "watered down" and "westernized" enough to allow for peaceful coexistence.

 

Your comparison fails. I didn't do anything comparable to what you described above here. And this I do find deplorable. Don't accuse me of things I haven't done, I won't have it.

 

If you're frustrated that people are not understanding you accurately, then stop getting pissed off and lashing out at the reader and start communicating and articulating your thoughts more clearly as the author.

 

Pissed off? Lashing out? No, iNow, for an open discussion of opinions, I'm not going to attempt to conform to your ridiculous, impossibly high standards which involve everything being absolute, everything being non-open to interpretation in anyway, nor will I accommodate for your deliberate lack of common sense regarding this debate, your deliberate no stretch of imagination and your deliberate non-leniency. You're being as though I'm trying to put forward a scientific theory, as opposed to what I'm actually doing, trying to start an open discussion, of opinions. You're being ridiculous and I won't concede otherwise.

It's clear this discussion can't go on any further; other than what I've said there's nothing else for me to say. As I said before, I politely retire from this topic. Not angrily or lashing out as iNow sees it.

Which one then? Be specific.

You don't want to look at the original topic, as I suggested. Fair enough... I'll bring it to you:

 

I'd like to know the opinions and thoughts of others on Islam in the Western World. Specifically, do you think Islam will be 'Westernised', 'watered down', made to be benign (as has happened with Christianity in the West) sufficiently enough to minimise the adverse effects of living in a predominantly or significantly Islamic population to the point where peaceful coexistence is possible?

Adverse effects being for example: capital punishments, implementation of 'holy laws', frequent terror attacks, the implementation of sharia law etc.

Now, stay with me here. I did mention "Islamic population", but I assure you, the factor is Islam. That was my intent. YES, my intent may not have come across, that happens. Yes, you might not accept Islam as a factor as I'm trying to, if not, just say so.

So what!?!?!? My discussion's whole purpose is to discuss the factor of Islam. I don't assume there aren't other factors, it's just I'm not discussing them right now.

Now I hope not to cause offence here, as you're one of the members I regard highly and respect on these forums; but just in case you missed that again: Islam.

This discussion is pointless as it discusses not a religion per se, but followers of the religion and then even some random subset at an arbitrary point in time.

Look at the original topic for a second please; it's calling for a discussion on Islam... 'per se'. Just because others have changed it from that, and I've had to reply to them, doesn't mean I made that the new topic.

As others have pointed out, there are so many different islamic countries and societies that a true discussion has to be much more in-depth and cannot be boiled down to Christianity vs Islam.

I never boiled it down to that. Someone else introduced it, I merely responded to it. That was in no way my discussion. The problem is every time someone throws an argument my way, someone else sees my response, and out of context sees my response and makes a million assumptions about what I've said or believe. By ALL means have a much more in-depth discussion, it's other people narrowing it down to specific points I've made. I started a very broad topic, which others have chipped away and narrowed down with their wild assumptions.

For example, it appears that the general conception is that Islam prevents women's rights. But look for example at voting rights. In Iran and Afghanistan they were allowed to vote in 1963, but in Switzerland it took almost a decade longer.

Stop looking at individual examples, the teachings of Islam and implementation of Islamic teaching is what I'm asking to be considered. Stop picking out individual countries, individual practices, and saying "well Islam isn't the only factor preventing women's rights"... So what!?!?!? My discussion's whole purpose is to discuss the factor of Islam. I don't assume there aren't other factors, it's just I'm not discussing them right now.

But since then in Afghanistan things changed dramatically. So if even within a country values and rights change dramatically without a radical change in religion, how can you expect to be able to distill it down to that simple factor?

I'm not distilling it down to one factor, I'm FOCUSING on one factor. If you don't see the value in that, by all means explain why, but don't assume I haven't considered other factors.

It has to be said this is the most exhausted I've been on these forums trying to get a simple discussion started. I retire from this discussion, not out of anger; because it's not going anywhere any time soon. I fell into the trap of responding to people who went off-topic, then everyone else fell for the trap of reading my responses, instead of the original topic. Madness.

I'm done ladies and gents, feel free to carry on discussing, but I won't be, because I feel discouraged to do so.

You seem to be focused mostly on extremist groups, not Islam. Try to remember that just because an organization calls itself the Islamic State does not mean they are representative of Islamic people, although they do get more attention in the media because it's sensational and so tend to enjoy a spotlight effect in our minds.

 

Again. Try not to conflate Islam with extremism. The extremists do hose things you mention, not your average everyday believer.

 

And here all Abrahamic religions enjoy an equivalence and Islam is not in any way meaningfully different than Christianity.

 

I'm no fan of religion, but I'm also no fan of broad sweeping misplaced generalizations and unfocused uninformed assertions.

Well I see why you're confused. You've assumed when I say Islam that I mean "all Muslims" or when I refer to a particular Islamic state that I mean "every Muslim in that state". When I say Islam, I mean the teachings of Islam, the governments under Islam.

I'm stunned at how quick and comfortable everyone feels- assuming that I have some vendetta against every Muslim and that I'm trying to throw Muslims in one category, even though I haven't stated or implied anything of such.

Suspect me of doing so- that's fine. But when you instantly jump to the conclusion that- that's what I'm doing, you're being rather ridiculous.

Can we just put forward our opinions on the discussion topic and stop trying to accuse me of generalising and having some sort of vendetta against all Muslims, based on your whims?

I welcome criticism of me or my arguments- I don't welcome what you're doing right now.

 

But not against Western practices, which is probably a more apt comparison. In the US there are those trying to impose Christian law, we have an unjust legal system, and women are still oppressed. The reality is the the US is only more "advanced" or enlightened by a couple of generations, at best. There are people alive now who were born when women couldn't vote and government-sanctioned segregation was the standard.

 

A fair analysis is actions compared to actions, not one group's actions to another's supposed ideals.

Sure enough there are those trying to impose Christian law, but Christian law isn't by default or without question the system in place in the US. Nor has that ever been the case in the US, thanks to your Bill of Rights. Whereas in UAE and Dubai the opposite is the case.

 

But not against Western practices, which is probably a more apt comparison. In the US there are those trying to impose Christian law, we have an unjust legal system, and women are still oppressed. The reality is the the US is only more "advanced" or enlightened by a couple of generations, at best. There are people alive now who were born when women couldn't vote and government-sanctioned segregation was the standard.

 

A fair analysis is actions compared to actions, not one group's actions to another's supposed ideals.

Fair enough, however; 'by how many generations the US is more advanced or enlightened in comparison' wasn't my point. It's comparing each country as it is today, with particular focus on the key variable of this discussion; Islam, which was my point.

The legal system is always going to be unjust, in any country, but I'm obviously talking about the Islam's part to play in that; my point being that if our legal systems jump back to the current Islam-style courts of justice, seen in these Islamic countries, it'd be a jump back, not forward.

I meant for you to point out specifically the left-wing possible nutcases and support your assertion regarding 'them'.

 

Oh sorry, in that case: no.

شكرا

 

Citations please.

 

Progressive society is not exclusive to 'Western'. Can you say algebra? Seen Islamic art?

 

Again, these denials of education etc. are coming from extremist Muslims and they do not represent the majority of Muslims. Yes all religions are to receive blame for their narrow-mindedness, but Islam holds no exclusivity in this regard.

Don't expect citations for something which I've clearly expressed as an opinion.

Make note of the words I've highlighted in bold, I've done that for you. So take not of "on the whole".

I never said Islam was exclusive with that respect.

In summary, read what I've said before emptily attempting to debunk everything I say based on technicalities, as though you're achieving anything besides derailing this discussion by doing so.

I don't know about most of those countries, but Saudis 'circumcise' little girls and don't allow women to drive, to name just a couple examples encouraged by their religious belief. To be fair, Mormons and Catholics don't allow women in the clergy and Catholics prohibit birth control. So, if it's not one thing oppressive with religions, it's another.

A very good point.

As we have been learning in the Is Political Conservatism a mild form of Insanity? thread, 'left-wing nuts' are few and far between compared to right-wing authoritarians when it comes to religious fundamentalismnuttiness.

I agree right-wing nuts are probably more dangerous and common, but I welcome neither to my discussions, and I've possibly encountered the left-wing of the scale already; hence my mentioning of it.

No; they are not behaving differently. The media may give that perception, but while there may be more violence being perpetrated by extremist Muslims than extremist Christians or extremist Hindu's yada, yada, yada, most Muslims, as most other religious followers, are not extremists. (Outside of the usual extremes all religions involve.)

 

Again no. Christianity is hardly benign given 'their' stance against gays, birth control, evolution, their proselytizing, yada, yada, yada religious BS ad infinitum.

 

No; I jumped nowhere. Common sense led me -at a leisurely pace- to the conclusion you want to bash Islam over other religious bashing. I am an equal opportunity basher.

Well then I simply disagree, Islam, on the whole, is far more radical today than what Christianity is.

Christianity is still benign in comparison to Islam. Christianity originates predominantly in Western, progressive, advanced cultures and societies, like EU, USA, most of the commonwealth. On the whole the harm caused by Christianity is belittled are far less shocking than Islam. If you disagree, then I simply have to disagree in return on that point.

Perhaps a better question is whether or not it's Islam that leads to these challenges or if instead they are the result of isolation, lack of education, and few available resources. There are plenty of Muslims who are already very westernized, watered down, and benign... Most of them, actually.

 

Scratch that. A better question still is how can we eliminate poverty and extremism in all of it's many forms, and can we actually do so without becoming extremist ourselves?

Yes I guess I haven't stabbed at the core root of the real problems with my question, but I'm looking at what's happening right now, and whether it's realistic in the short term to integrate Islam in with Western societies, given its rapid growth in such areas.

I don't see capitalism being overthrown or a widespread revolution coming, so as for the poverty matter, I don't know. But I can't see it improving a great deal. As for a lack of education and among other things these countries are deprived of, I personally think it's fair to blame Islam in part for that; where little girls wanting an education are being shot in the head, and the very nature of religion in its ability to deter people from learning and advancing, instead clinging to the fixed dogmatic views of their interpretation of holy books.

Not sure what is considered an educated opinion? I have an opinion though. So I will start by saying I have never traveled to a predominantly Muslim country, attended any sort of Muslim ceremony, or fully read the Quran. In other words I am not a subject matter expert.

Wealthy Muslims countries like Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Saidi Arabia, Brunei, and Jordan don't have radical religious oppression throughout. While they mistreat migrant workers they take good care of there own people. Male and female. The terrorism, religious unrest, and brutality many westerners relate to strict adherence to Muslim doctrine primarily exists amongst the poor. I don't consider that a coincidence. Islam is foriegn to westerners so I think it gets extra attention. However civil unrest, violence, war lords, and etc exists every where in the world where the people of a region are repressed and don't freely share in the benifits of their labors and resources. Cities like Dubia show that when comfortable predominantly Muslim people ease into the capitalist western style of living.

By educated opinion I simply meant an opinion backed up by some reason and knowledge, which is what you've done. So thanks!

I can't really speak on many of the countries that you've listed, but I think you've made a good point by naming them. I suppose wealthy Islamic countries would be the first place to look if you want to get an idea of how Islam and Western countries might coexist in the near future. As it would be slightly unfair to only look at the most radical and extreme Islamic countries. My only objection to that, is that there is significant immigration from the poorer more extreme Islamic countries into Western countries, and some of them do carry their radical beliefs with them.

I'll pick the UAE out of the list, because I know a little about it and I agree that it is an example of a 'wealthy Islamic nation', as we're on the topic.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/2013722133556357619.html

The UAE still enforces sharia law, still has an unjust legal system, and still has many prejudices against women, and women are still oppressed. These are in direct conflict with typical Western principles. That goes for Dabai too.

I think you've brought up some important considerations here oz.

Unfortunately I read that admonition as "If you don't agree with what I declare is the obviously correct interpretation I don't wish you take part in this discussion."

 

Your wish is my command, Adieu.

Thanks for that worthless, arrogant, presumptive contribution to this discussion. Nevertheless I'm glad to see that my message is getting through to the right people.

I imagine that the ability to oversimplify must be very comforting for you.

Feel free to point out what, if anything I've oversimplified. I beg you. Your ambiguity seems ironically rather similar to oversimplification in its nature.

This is a false premise. Christianity remains full of hatred, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, selfishness, and no end of other extreme thoughts and actions. Islam or any other religion your care to pitch will suffer no better in the West or elsewhere.

Well I suppose I'm appealing for people to approach the question, with recognition that Christianity and Islam do behave significantly differently in the World at present, with one being far more benign than the other respectively, with regard to some of the specifics I exampled in my second post.

The premise isn't at all false, you've merely misunderstood my point which I though I'd made clear. Perhaps I should've said 'relatively benign', but I thought that was implied when I also said in the same sentence 'watered down' and 'Westernised'. If that was not clear then I apologise, I hold Christianity in as much contempt as I do Islam, however the presence of Christianity in the World compared to that of Islam is irrefutably relatively benign.

And while I have cleared my throat, I put it to you that also nowhere did I state or even imply that Christianity is now perfect in any sense, and common sense should've lead you to realise that I didn't mean that, based on the rest of the paragraph. For some reason you jumped to assuming I meant Christianity is perfect and Islam isn't?

I don't know how many muslims you know. I know quite a few, some of them actually being religious (most are about as religious as the average european christian, which is not very much by US or fundamentalist standards). I not only coexist with them peacefully, some of them I actually call friends. And that's with being one of those atheist infidels. None of them declared a holy war recently, as far as I know.

A fair point, despite the facetious ending and slightly defensive vibe I got from it; all too common whenever the topic of criticising or showing concerns towards Islam arises.

I know several Muslims, non of which I can call close friends (incidentally not out of deliberation), and I grew up closely with several Hindi and Muslim children primarily (as you do living in or around the London area), to none of whom did or do I have any aversions towards.

Let's get this out the way quickly for the sake of having a constructive and forward moving discussion: I did not create this topic to induce ignorant fearmongering against religious minorities of ANY religious persuasion. When I say Islam, I'm using its sincerest definition; i.e. the religion; not a synonym for brown people or middle-eastern minorities.

'Islamophobic' is not a valid argument, nor is anything along those lines. If you're a left-wing nut or someone who's hypersensitive on behalf of Islam or offended by any rightful, rational discussion which includes criticism and concerns over Islam THE RELIGION. This debate isn't for you, please move on.

I'd like to know the opinions and thoughts of others on Islam in the Western World. Specifically, do you think Islam will be 'Westernised', 'watered down', made to be benign (as has happened with Christianity in the West) sufficiently enough to minimise the adverse effects of living in a predominantly or significantly Islamic population to the point where peaceful coexistence is possible?

Adverse effects being for example: capital punishments, implementation of 'holy laws', frequent terror attacks, the implementation of sharia law etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISLAM MEANING THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM, THE RELIGION OF ISLAM, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISLAM. NOT meaning individual Islamic religionists; NOT meaning EVERY Muslim; NOT meaning every. individual. single. aspect. of Islam.

A much needed throat clearing, apparently. If you want to assume I'm an ignoramus pushing blind hatred for Islam and Muslims, if you want to be offended by all means do so, it takes a lot to hurt my feelings. Although I'd point out that I'm anti-religion, anti-Islam, NOT anti-religionist.

Misinterpreted religion has always been a convenient anchorage for self-disenfranchised fools. And a convenient scapegoat for people who find complexity troubling.

Then again a lot of the evil and destruction arising from Islam needn't be misinterpreted. It's teachings plainly promotes ideologies specialising in those feats.

 

How is it stupid?

 

"--"

And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

 

It wasn't a personalised insult, but yes I was attacking your idea, with a lack of sensitivity, perhaps. But my position remains unchanged.

 

How is it stupid?

 

The theory expressed in the original post is that nature is a greater good, and things are good because of this (that’s why they are good---which is what you’re asking). Remember, this is not individual things, this is everything together. I am not the true nature, so you wouldn’t accredit my personified view of things, you would only take account of the whole. To nature, things are either evil or good. In essence, I am redefining good, taking it away from religious belief and into rationality. Is nature (the whole) greater than individual humans? Yes, in many ways, as expressed in the original post and later posts. You are above nature, because you are nature, but nature is also beyond you, it is a greater good. You are in control of your body, but beyond your control is a heartbeat and bodily functions. The planet is greater than humans in mass, it is their habitat, and it’s a fine representative of the greater good of nature.

Why is nature good? Because it facilitates (how it facilitates everything is a list too long to write here; we can use “good” as a loose-term to describe this generosity, or ‘help’, from nature) beings in the universe---that are good in accordance with the facility; humans for example had to work hard to survive until civilization advanced to the modern era; animals are focused survivors when not kept in homes as pets. These things are being what nature intended them to be when the world found the harmony to create life. It may have been spontaneous, but I doubt life would have come about if there was no food on the land or oxygen in the atmosphere. We have reason, if we take account of the whole, “we”, or “us”, and not the individual factors. For example, taking account of the body shows that you have a bias toward family-orientated survival. It’s probable that if there were one trillion Earths, and they all had someone like you on it, in most cases you would be surviving and helping your family survive, the latter would be where you were on a internet forum.

And since the last post was nothing more than an hypocritical 'meaningless' insult, with no actual inclination to discuss the original post, I'll take it as your comment is invalid, thanks for your input.

 

Exactly what I meant when I said you should be more scientific in future, drop this theory of yours. You're on a fool's errand. You're attempting to create new definitions, which are unnecessary, confusing; science already has definitions for the things to which you refer. Why would we go to the effort of learning YOUR definitions, when you refuse to make use of the existing, accepted, universal definitions of the English language? It's madness.

The terms you should be making use of here are 'environmentally sustainable', 'mutualism', 'destructive' and other scientific/biological definitions. Yet instead you insist on stubbornly redefining things and applying them universally incorrectly, on your mission to somehow attack all of religion.

 

I theorize that Nature is a "greater good", and creates lesser goods that harmonize with it. Ultimately, I'm suggesting the universe is good, but I'm redefining good, taking it away from religious belief into rationality.

Let's stop you there. "Good" and "bad" are ultimately meaningless in the universe, other than to the human mind. They're subjective notions brought about by what makes us feel good and what makes us feel bad. That's it.

Now if any religion claims to have a monopoly on what's 'good', as opposed to it being innate to the majority of human beings, we can laugh it off. Because we know it's not remotely true.

But for you to devise this crackpot theory, is pointless, meaningless, false and counter-productive to your claimed goal. You're taking the definition of good away from religion and giving it to a new form of stupid superstition.

I suggest you rethink your strategy completely and try being much more scientific in future.

This is near where I live...

 

So you're surrounded by brilliant weather and stunning girls.... jeez. Not bad at all.

Note, I'm putting this in the biology forum because there is no "sexology" forum. Also, I'm using this site (a science site) because I am not just looking for the reasons that you, personally, like lesbians, but rather, the scientific reason why they're so popular on a general level.

 

Think about it: Why do men enjoy homosexual porn of the opposite sex, but that same fetish is not near as widespread among women? How, exactly, does testosterone accomplish one thing, but estrogen does not accomplish the exact opposite?

 

Most guys give the reason of "twice the fun" for why they like lesbians, but that logic does not work with women liking gay men.

 

It is the job of scientists to inquire as to why lesbians are so popular among the sex they aren't attracted to, yet that does not work vice versa.

 

Why is that?

I think you're over thinking it, looking for a missing link that perhaps doesn't exist. It's the same reason we like women, except with two women you add in sexual acts to the equation, which is more exciting. And how do you know the same isn't true with women for gay men?

I find I liked the lesbian stuff much more when I was younger and first looking at porn. These days I prefer heterosexual stuff, find it more exciting; probably because it seems more relatable in a sense, now that I'm at the age where I'm seeing women, it's more realistic in a sense. I think age and mind-set may have something to do with it therefore. Not just from my experience but conferring with mates on the topic in the past.