What exactly did they teach you in sex ed? Unless you’re the product of artificial insemination, there was likely the usual element of eroticism involved in your conception.
I certainly was not "stimulated". Most young adults find sex-ed a bit embarrassing or funny, being taught by an adult. If your teacher "aroused" you that would seem to be a personal issue, and if intentional, could be legally actionable.
If there wasn’t something inherently unique to those objects they wouldn’t be relevant to the obsession.
You really have no clue.
in·her·ent
1.
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute.
How does someone's personal obsession add "a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute" to an object? If everyone does not agree that an object has said quality than it is not an inherent quality. Period.
Crack a dictionary.
Overtly sexual behavior is an example young adults will emulate.
So if you were to parade down the street exposing your genitals, would you expect bystanders to approach to engage in sexual intercourse? Or, have you ever been lucky enough to encounter a young woman parading topless down a street willing to engage in sex with you? Do you really think emulating such behaviors are common or effective methods used to establish sexual relationships?
What the fuck are you on about? Who said ANYTHING about emulating the exact behavior (i.e. nudity in a parade) to "establish sexual relationships"?
First, overtly sexual behavior is not solely limited to nudity, as I have previous cited bump-and-grinding, etc.. Second, overt sexual behavior can be seen as a norm by the young and impressionable, which can lead women to view themselves as solely sexual objects, among other things.
If you thing people viewing themselves as sexual objects is an effective method for establishing
healthy sexual relationships, then again, that sounds like a personal problem.
But for children to witness and be aroused by it in a gay pride parade is.
Again, who said anything about child arousal (except you, of course)? Pervert.
What wrong with nudity in front of children? I was thinking Putin meant gays rape children, not that their gay pride parades was damaging to children's psyche!
I think the problem here is the idea that children should be kept in ignorance of sex for as long a possible, why?
Nudity is not necessarily overtly sexual. No need for children to be kept ignorant either, especially as they start becoming sexually mature, but their exposure should be reasonably monitored. I mean, most people do not think porn is appropriate sex-ed, because is depicts unrealistic and risky behavior.
How exactly does one make one's sexuality overt?
How do gays overtly display their sexuality in a way that is different to heterosexual people?
Who said "different"? Simulating sex is obviously overt, and heterosexuals do not generally have parades celebrating their sexuality.
Overtly sexual behavior is an example young adults will emulate.
Do you think that if someone sees a boob or a penis, then if they are seen by a young adult, they will immediately strip down and have sex or something?
You sick pervert! Again, like Capracus, why do you leap to the assumption that emulation would require immediate sexual arousal?
Perverts!
Or do you think children do not experiment with sex and even their own bodies through masturbation, etc?
Masturbation is typically private, hence not overt.
Or do you think if a boob or penis is flashed or if someone wears skimpy underwear or bathing suit on a mardi gras float, then young people will also want to strip down and dance to music while wearing wild and bright costumes?
Do you think if young adults visit some parts of Asia, where some of the religious temples are decorated in "overt sexual displays" that they will immediately drop their pants and start having sex? What about if they visit some of the religious churches and cathedrals and art galleries in Europe, where many of the artwork is "overtly sexual"?
Again, why assume immediate sexual arousal, pervert? Can you really just not imagine anything between completely innocuous and complete depraved? I am talking about behavior the impressionable may see as a norm, and
latter emulate.
To reiterate, Syne, you can't catch gay. If someone sees a gay person's sexual bits, it won't make them gay.
Straw man. Who said anything about "catching" gay?
