Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

orald wrote:Yes, bisexual. Actually I like women much more, having quite a broad taste in them, whereas I only like men that are twinks.
But don't let that discourage you in your fantasies about me. What's so hard to understand?
Or do you think it IS some wierd altruism?

orald wrote:

TMB wrote: I have no doubt that some people are born gay. While others, choose to live a gay lifestyle for any variety of social or cultural reasons.

Choose? I wouldn't call it choose, TMB.

The only choice gays have is whether or not to follow their orientation or to hide and pretend they're like the rest.

You do not choose to have a hard-on from a guy the same as you don't choose to feel heat from a fire.

Orald, that's what TMB wrote: choose to live a gay lifestyle, not choose to be gay or not. Come on.

fantomas wrote:

orald wrote:Yes, bisexual. Actually I like women much more, having quite a broad taste in them, whereas I only like men that are twinks.
But don't let that discourage you in your fantasies about me. What's so hard to understand?
Or do you think it IS some wierd altruism?

I don't know what the hell you're laughing at, when you obviously can't even work the quote function correctly.

Tleilax Master B wrote: Homosexuality has likely been occurring at the same frequency for many, many years now. The difference is culture. Culture deems whether or not being gay is "acceptable" or to what degree it crosses beyond the "social norm." Thus, in some societies, at different times, it is OK to be openly gay and it appears there is a higher frequency of this. However, at other times in other societies its a very big no-no, and thus seeing openly gay individuals is rare.

Homosexuality IMO is likely to be both a biological and cultural phenomena. I have no doubt that some people are born gay. While others, choose to live a gay lifestyle for any variety of social or cultural reasons.

There are also "the pleasure seekers".

SandChigger wrote:

fantomas wrote:

I don't know what the hell you're laughing at, when you obviously can't even work the quote function correctly.

orald wrote:

TMB wrote: I have no doubt that some people are born gay. While others, choose to live a gay lifestyle for any variety of social or cultural reasons.

Choose? I wouldn't call it choose, TMB.

The only choice gays have is whether or not to follow their orientation or to hide and pretend they're like the rest.

You do not choose to have a hard-on from a guy the same as you don't choose to feel heat from a fire.

I only started feeling for men around the age of 18-19. I'd probably have ignored it for long if I haven't had half a crush(more like lust, desire w/e) for a neighboor of mine.

This goes for pedo's as well- people seem to think they're evil just because they like younglings(oh dear God I hate that word ).
The only problem IMO comes when they try to fulfill their desire, and only because their subjet of their affections is unable to decide for him/herself properly due to young age.

READING, its FUNdamental I said "choose to live a gay lifestyle" not "choose to be gay."

I have a female friend who is "bisexual" if you will (and incredibly hot BTW). She openly admits that she is primarily attracted to men. However, when she was younger she hung out with a lot of lesbians and found it enjoyable (both sexually and as mysterious and a little "wrong") to sleep with women. She says, basically, that it was "fashionable" in her group and pleasure wasn't bad either. Occasionally, when she has had a bad male relationship, she seeks out sex with women. She never has a serious relationship with them, and she always is biologically drawn back to developing a relationship with men. She does it for pleasure, and thats it.

Is she gay? She would say "no."

It is quite possible for people to want to experiment, or enjoy the pleasure of something "different" or "unacceptable" for a thrill without having been born "gay" IMHO.

I watched Party Monster last night based on the book Disco Bloodbath staring McCauly Calkin and Seth Green.

It was fabulous!

chigger wrote:^^^ At last, something from an expert.

Oh yes, we needed an anthropologist to understand that it's not a population control scheme by Mother Nature.
My words weren't enough for you it seems.
I've found nothing new in TMB's post. Also nothing you can't deduce by yourelf without the need for reading any article.

He says the same as me, only he has "In my studies" in there. BFD.
I don't think we need a degree to figure out that people are selfish assholes and don't go banging up the wrong hole to stop over-population.

Clarification: This is not to say I don't appriciate your studying, TMB.
In fact anthropology is one of the areas that most interest me.
This was just to shut Chigger up for dissing my post with his "Sorry, but I don't see you making any substantive claims or bringing up any real research. What I see you doing is waffling on about old eggs and poo-pooing theories based on nothing more than opinion." .

Orald, going back to your earlier response...

Maybe I misunderstood your intentions, but I was getting a weird vibe from your choice of words that rubbed me the wrong way.

(Vibe...rub me...there's a mental picture or two for ya! Happy nightmares! )

I don't think homosexuality is altruism, but I had heard of that theory before. My reference to "old eggs" wasn't about the birds in the nest, but to your comment about the (human) eggs and sperm getting older in connection with the latter children idea.

orald wrote:People are(usually) much more than biological automatons and have a variety of irrelevent stuff to do before, after and during procreation.

I wrote:But what percentage of all human sexual activity does actually lead to viable offspring?

You can't "blame" nature when your sperm fails to impregnate, but obstructing it deliberately would be, in biological PoV, a waste of your resources.

My point there was that human sexual activity extends far beyond things that are directed at reproduction. Women can only conceive during a limited period every month but both sexes are hot to trot 24/7/52.

It's almost like Evolution, when it rolled out our model of human, announced it in the trades with the copy line

Sex: It's not just for reproduction anymore!


(B, that's so weird...I knew a girl like that, too, at State. She used to like to have sex with her boyfriends in trees on campus. )

Chig, don't your cells get damaged(DNA too) over time? Every time your cells devide there's a little piece of the end of the chain that gets broken(though it's supposed to be "trash DNA")? Unless they changed that in the last 5 years since I finished school.

Add to that possible outside damages from radiation, and you get the picture of your sperm losing it's quality over the years(I prefer good quality sperm, only from young twinks ).

That and possible problems in the pregnancy of older women can change alot in the fetus' mind.

I know it wouldn't account for much if that study only had siblings born 1-2 years apart, but I doubt it had.
Over a period of 15-20 years alot can change and affect the quality of the genetic make-up or pregnancy conditions.

Of course, you could say growing up with big brothers will make you want big(hairy) men(named Bubba) all around you later on in life.

bryanvdk wrote:that green movement is really taking over.

Oh, this was LONG before any green movement...just a lot of movement in the green...and on the green...which was called The Oval....

orald wrote:Chig, don't your cells get damaged(DNA too) over time? Every time your cells devide there's a little piece of the end of the chain that gets broken(though it's supposed to be "trash DNA")? Unless they changed that in the last 5 years since I finished school.

Add to that possible outside damages from radiation, and you get the picture of your sperm losing it's quality over the years(I prefer good quality sperm, only from young twinks ).

Aging of male organisms and of their sperm reduces fertility and embryo viability. Yes.

(I can't help but wonder, why the references all the time to your being bisexual and liking "twinks"? Shock value? Therapeutic counseling by repeatedly getting it "off your chest"? Just curious)

That and possible problems in the pregnancy of older women can change alot in the fetus' mind.

Huh? As in change the fetus' opinion? ( )

I know it wouldn't account for much if that study only had siblings born 1-2 years apart, but I doubt it had.
Over a period of 15-20 years alot can change and affect the quality of the genetic make-up or pregnancy conditions.

Not entirely sure that is accurate. I think there is an age threshold of diminshing returns, but I'm not certain that its continued linear degradation, such as say a 16 year old has more viable sperm than a different 31 year old. Keep in mind, there is variation also between individuals.

Again, Orald, with the idea of them being defective? Whatever.

Telomeres are not "junk DNA", btw.

The only new info there was on your sperm preferences.

SandChigger wrote:Again, Orald, with the idea of them being defective? Whatever.

Telomeres are not "junk DNA", btw.

The only new info there was on your sperm preferences.

That information was new?

Not junk DNA? Then when pieces of it get lost it doesn't ruin the cell? How can this be if it's vital for the cell's function? I don't mean "junk DNA" to be "useless DNA", it's got it's uses, like for this.

I know there's no rule about how sperm gets ruined over time, but a generalization of "older=less viable" should be about right, no?
I didn't specify exact times, only the general direction.

(I can't help but wonder, why the references all the time to your being bisexual and liking "twinks"? Shock value? Therapeutic counseling by repeatedly getting it "off your chest"? Just curious)

It makes for better jokes IMO than hetrosexual ones.
It's good for spicing up the conversation.

Again, Orald, with the idea of them being defective? Whatever.

IDK, it seems to me if it's not a good thing for the breeding chances of the individual then it's a defect. Not caring for the opposite sex could hamper one's breeding chances.
I know my loathing of kids and lack of interest in having any of my own probably mean I won't have any, thank God, though God knows many women vie for my attention.

I wish...

orald wrote: I know there's no rule about how sperm gets ruined over time, but a generalization of "older=less viable" should be about right, no?

In general, yes.

It makes for better jokes IMO than hetrosexual ones.
It's good for spicing up the conversation.

Okey dokey.

IDK, it seems to me if it's not a good thing for the breeding chances of the individual then it's a defect. Not caring for the opposite sex could hamper one's breeding chances.
I know my hating of kids and lack of interest in having my own probably mean I won't have any, thank God.

Defective? IDK. "Evolutionarily less fit", probably. Offspring viability is the key. If you don't make any offspring, they certainly aren't very viable

It's possible for Homosexuality to be an evolutionary advantage to increase the population as opposed to population control. There are many theories around that having Gays to stay home and protect the women (I'd be more comfortable about a gay guy living with my girl than a straight) while the men are out hunting would be very advantagous. As far as passing it on, it would be passed on as a recessive gene, so while gays are not more likly to pass on their genetics, their families may be, so forth and so on.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:It's possible for Homosexuality to be an evolutionary advantage to increase the population as opposed to population control. There are many theories around that having Gays to stay home and protect the women (I'd be more comfortable about a gay guy living with my girl than a straight) while the men are out hunting would be very advantagous. As far as passing it on, it would be passed on as a recessive gene, so while gays are not more likly to pass on their genetics, their families may be, so forth and so on.

Dude, there are "many" theories to that effect? Care to cite any of them? I would love to see a reputable anthropologist/biologist state that Gays stay home and protected the women Why wouldn't a gay guy be able to hunt?

(No offense Thing of Eternity, but I think everything you listed above is completely unfounded BS. Nevertheless, if you have a link to your "evidence" I would LOVE to give it a read )

The "gay gene" is recessive, huh. Must be an issue of "incomplete dominance" such that the heterozygous allele produces bisexuals--like Orald. HA HA, Orald's a heterozygous, Orald's a heterozygous!!

Males produce sperm continuously form most of their lives, the only "old sperm" you have goes down the shower drain or to the landfill.

Females are born with all the eggs they will ever have.

At least that's what I was taught.

Tleilax Master B wrote:

A Thing of Eternity wrote:It's possible for Homosexuality to be an evolutionary advantage to increase the population as opposed to population control. There are many theories around that having Gays to stay home and protect the women (I'd be more comfortable about a gay guy living with my girl than a straight) while the men are out hunting would be very advantagous. As far as passing it on, it would be passed on as a recessive gene, so while gays are not more likly to pass on their genetics, their families may be, so forth and so on.

Dude, there are "many" theories to that effect? Care to cite any of them? I would love to see a reputable anthropologist/biologist state that Gays stay home and protected the women Why wouldn't a gay guy be able to hunt?

(No offense Thing of Eternity, but I think everything you listed above is completely unfounded BS. Nevertheless, if you have a link to your "evidence" I would LOVE to give it a read )

The "gay gene" is recessive, huh. Must be an issue of "incomplete dominance" such that the heterozygous allele produces bisexuals--like Orald. HA HA, Orald's a heterozygous, Orald's a heterozygous!!

Hey, it's not my theory, but yes I will try and track down where I got this from. I will try and get source info before I go posting wacky thing I heard who knows where.

I read about a study recently that suggested the youngest of mutliple male siblings is more likely to turn out gay.

Freakzilla wrote:I read about a study recently that suggested the youngest of mutliple male siblings is more likely to turn out gay.

Yes, that's the one I and someone else before me were refering to.

Freakzilla wrote:Males produce sperm continuously form most of their lives, the only "old sperm" you have goes down the shower drain or to the landfill.

Yet the cells producing your sperm are aging after so much time and devisions.

AToE, I hope you're not actaully agreeing with this "gays stay at home" bullshit. It sounds cornier than a 10 y-o's joke.
Anyone who says such a thing probably thinks gay=girly.
Mayeb they need to read about that Theban military unit.

orald wrote: AToE, I hope you're not actaully agreeing with this "gays stay at home" bullshit. It sounds cornier than a 10 y-o's joke.
Anyone who says such a thing probably thinks gay=girly.
Mayeb they need to read about that Theban military unit.

No I don't agree with that, I've known some pretty masculine gay guys. This is from an article I read a couple years ago, and I thought I'd bring it up to see if anyone else had heard something similar. I'm not having good luck tracking down said article, I guess I'm going to have to learn to source this stuff before I start rambling. Anyways, though I'd point out that I have a bad habit of tossing things into conversations that aren't actually my opinions, I put them in to see what other people say to contradict them. I'll start mentioning whether something i say is something I believe, or something I am entering specifically to have people poke holes in it. I like doing this, as it lets me see sides to things that I don't normally see from my point of veiw.

A Thing of Eternity wrote:

orald wrote: AToE, I hope you're not actaully agreeing with this "gays stay at home" bullshit. It sounds cornier than a 10 y-o's joke.
Anyone who says such a thing probably thinks gay=girly.
Mayeb they need to read about that Theban military unit.

No I don't agree with that, I've known some pretty masculine gay guys. This is from an article I read a couple years ago, and I thought I'd bring it up to see if anyone else had heard something similar. I'm not having good luck tracking down said article, I guess I'm going to have to learn to source this stuff before I start rambling. Anyways, though I'd point out that I have a bad habit of tossing things into conversations that aren't actually my opinions, I put them in to see what other people say to contradict them. I'll start mentioning whether something i say is something I believe, or something I am entering specifically to have people poke holes in it. I like doing this, as it lets me see sides to things that I don't normally see from my point of veiw.

Fair enough! Trust me, this one has so many holes its swiss cheese!

It might get you killed though if you ever shout "Go Kevie!" in a Dune convention just to see the reactions.

Don't tell us later it was a joke.