Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
Eh... This sort of contradicts my personal experience. Will be interesting to read when the thing is published and available.
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
Well, if he does turn out to be gay, I hope that by the time he wants to be open about it, he won't risk losing friends, being bullied, frozen out or otherwise mistreated because of it.
Agreed Asmo! I sincerely hope that our society becomes completely accepting and loving towards homosexuals within my lifetime whether I have a gay child or not.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
Maybe, if true, this would qualify as an evolutionary side-effect something like sickle cell anaemia.
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
What a blow for your self-esteem if he turns out not to be gay.
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
What a blow for your self-esteem if he turns out not to be gay.
Right?!? ;D
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 10:14:52 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
What a blow for your self-esteem if he turns out not to be gay.
Right?!? ;D
Would mean you are as miserable as the rest of us, that. Maybe even force you into plastic surgery! :o
Quick, give him a barbie doll and ban the sports channel from your TV! :o
Quote from: Asmodean on June 12, 2012, 10:21:49 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 10:14:52 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
What a blow for your self-esteem if he turns out not to be gay.
Right?!? ;D
Would mean you are as miserable as the rest of us, that. Maybe even force you into plastic surgery! :o
Quick, give him a barbie doll and ban the sports channel from your TV! :o
Sucks in a deep breath. You take that back!!! >:( :D
Quote from: Asmodean on June 12, 2012, 10:21:49 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 10:14:52 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:12:18 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 12, 2012, 09:57:25 PM
Happy funny relaxed attractive women have more gay sons? *Eyes T speculatively* ;D
What a blow for your self-esteem if he turns out not to be gay.
Right?!? ;D
Would mean you are as miserable as the rest of us, that. Maybe even force you into plastic surgery! :o
Quick, give him a barbie doll and ban the sports channel from your TV! :o
Buy him a Christina Aguilera record for his birthday, or does that count as child abuse?
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:26:30 PM
Buy him a Christina Aguilera record for his birthday, or does that count as child abuse?
<-- is a Christina fan. Does that mean...
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 10:27:37 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 12, 2012, 10:26:30 PM
Buy him a Christina Aguilera record for his birthday, or does that count as child abuse?
<-- is a Christina fan. Does that mean...
BURN THE FAG!!! >:(
Actually, donate fag to Asmo. He's all out. AGAIN. >:(
;D
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
I am still under the impression that being gay is genetic. And that we all have the gene. Were not the guys from South park right when they said that everyone is a little gay? The most homophobic men most often are also the ones in the closet anyway. All that pent up frustration.
Quote from: Anti-antidisestablishmentarianism on June 21, 2012, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
I am still under the impression that being gay is genetic. And that we all have the gene. Were not the guys from South park right when they said that everyone is a little gay? The most homophobic men most often are also the ones in the closet anyway. All that pent up frustration.
The Mayans predicted that everyone would be gay by 2050, so you could be right. Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Quote from: Anti-antidisestablishmentarianism on June 21, 2012, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
I am still under the impression that being gay is genetic. And that we all have the gene. Were not the guys from South park right when they said that everyone is a little gay? The most homophobic men most often are also the ones in the closet anyway. All that pent up frustration.
The Mayans predicted that everyone would be gay by 2050, so you could be right. Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
I'm sick of those damned Mayans. XP
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 22, 2012, 05:59:58 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Quote from: Anti-antidisestablishmentarianism on June 21, 2012, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men? (http://news.yahoo.com/why-gay-men-165924328.html)
QuoteTurns out, the moms and aunts of gay men have an advantage over the moms and aunts of straight men for several reasons: They are more fertile, displaying fewer gynecological disorders or complications during pregnancy; they are more extroverted, as well as funnier, happier and more relaxed; and they have fewer family problems and social anxieties. "In other words, compared to the others, [they are] perfect for a male," Camperio Ciani said. Attracting and choosing from the best males enables these women to produce more offspring, he noted.
The new study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Sexual Medicine.
Interesting to say the least.
I am still under the impression that being gay is genetic. And that we all have the gene. Were not the guys from South park right when they said that everyone is a little gay? The most homophobic men most often are also the ones in the closet anyway. All that pent up frustration.
The Mayans predicted that everyone would be gay by 2050, so you could be right. Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
I'm sick of those damned Mayans. XP
Now , that they didn't foresee.
Lmao no I'm pretty sure they didn't know that we would be sick of hearing about them when they aren't even around anymore.
I noticed that they made a point to note the delay in the surgery due to socialized medicine.
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
??? That can't be right...the world ending in 2012, perhaps. But Dawkins, Pope?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 26, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
??? That can't be right...the world ending in 2012, perhaps. But Dawkins, Pope?
Yes. And that bras would be made illegal due to their carbon footprint. That may have been wishful thinking though.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men?
Because some men find other men attractive and therefore we label them gay. Solved that conundrum.
Quote from: En_Route on June 26, 2012, 01:31:46 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 26, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
??? That can't be right...the world ending in 2012, perhaps. But Dawkins, Pope?
Yes. And that bras would be made illegal due to their carbon footprint. That may have been wishful thinking though.
This is why my undergarments are made of seaweed.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 26, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 26, 2012, 01:31:46 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 26, 2012, 01:26:55 AM
Quote from: En_Route on June 22, 2012, 12:10:44 AM
Then again, they also predicted that Richard Dawkins would be elected pope the following year.
??? That can't be right...the world ending in 2012, perhaps. But Dawkins, Pope?
Yes. And that bras would be made illegal due to their carbon footprint. That may have been wishful thinking though.
This is why my undergarments are made of seaweed.
Edible, I trust.
Quote from: Crow on June 26, 2012, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men?
Because some men find other men attractive and therefore we label them gay. Solved that conundrum.
<3 <3 so much love.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 06:12:21 AM
Quote from: Crow on June 26, 2012, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men?
Because some men find other men attractive and therefore we label them gay. Solved that conundrum.
<3 <3 so much love.
Read in some book (I think it was some university psychology textbook, but I may be wrong) that it is theorized that the vast majority of people are attracted to both sexes. Behaviour that goes one way or the other is a matter of degree of such attraction, social expectations and upbringing.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 26, 2012, 11:16:51 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 06:12:21 AM
Quote from: Crow on June 26, 2012, 01:40:22 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on June 12, 2012, 09:44:22 PM
Why Are There Gay Men?
Because some men find other men attractive and therefore we label them gay. Solved that conundrum.
<3 <3 so much love.
Read in some book (I think it was some university psychology textbook, but I may be wrong) that it is theorized that the vast majority of people are attracted to both sexes. Behaviour that goes one way or the other is a matter of degree of such attraction, social expectations and upbringing.
Yes, I believe this. I tend to agree with the theory that sexuality falls along a spectrum. I think most people fall somewhere along the spectrum other than the extreme ends (those extreme ends being either "completely exclusively 100% straight" and "completely exclusively 100% gay.") I also think it's interesting that women's sexuality is typically considered more fluid than men's. I have to wonder if that is "natural" (as in there is something in the wiring of women that allows us to be more fluid) or if that is more a result of societal pressures on men.
Quote from: Ali on June 26, 2012, 02:57:03 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 26, 2012, 11:16:51 AM
Read in some book (I think it was some university psychology textbook, but I may be wrong) that it is theorized that the vast majority of people are attracted to both sexes. Behaviour that goes one way or the other is a matter of degree of such attraction, social expectations and upbringing.
Yes, I believe this. I tend to agree with the theory that sexuality falls along a spectrum. I think most people fall somewhere along the spectrum other than the extreme ends (those extreme ends being either "completely exclusively 100% straight" and "completely exclusively 100% gay.") I also think it's interesting that women's sexuality is typically considered more fluid than men's. I have to wonder if that is "natural" (as in there is something in the wiring of women that allows us to be more fluid) or if that is more a result of societal pressures on men.
I would also agree with what the asmo said.
I think there is still a strong social pressure on men to behave and act a certain way, I would say much less so for women though there are certainly still certain pressures and this comes from the backgrounds, class, and influences that surround people. For some reason homosexuality is less frowned upon when it's women then when it's men, perhaps this is because many guys find women getting it on with each other attractive, I dunno.
Quote from: Crow on June 26, 2012, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 26, 2012, 02:57:03 PM
Yes, I believe this. I tend to agree with the theory that sexuality falls along a spectrum. I think most people fall somewhere along the spectrum other than the extreme ends (those extreme ends being either "completely exclusively 100% straight" and "completely exclusively 100% gay.") I also think it's interesting that women's sexuality is typically considered more fluid than men's. I have to wonder if that is "natural" (as in there is something in the wiring of women that allows us to be more fluid) or if that is more a result of societal pressures on men.
I would also agree with what the asmo said.
I think there is still a strong social pressure on men to behave and act a certain way, I would say much less so for women though there are certainly still certain pressures and this comes from the backgrounds, class, and influences that surround people. For some reason homosexuality is less frowned upon when it's women then when it's men, perhaps this is because many guys find women getting it on with each other attractive, I dunno.
That's what I've always suspected, like most guys are saying, "Okay, sure, maybe it's a sin or whatever, but I don't mind so much because it's hot."
Quote from: Ali on June 26, 2012, 04:10:14 PM
Quote from: Crow on June 26, 2012, 03:56:23 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 26, 2012, 02:57:03 PM
Yes, I believe this. I tend to agree with the theory that sexuality falls along a spectrum. I think most people fall somewhere along the spectrum other than the extreme ends (those extreme ends being either "completely exclusively 100% straight" and "completely exclusively 100% gay.") I also think it's interesting that women's sexuality is typically considered more fluid than men's. I have to wonder if that is "natural" (as in there is something in the wiring of women that allows us to be more fluid) or if that is more a result of societal pressures on men.
I would also agree with what the asmo said.
I think there is still a strong social pressure on men to behave and act a certain way, I would say much less so for women though there are certainly still certain pressures and this comes from the backgrounds, class, and influences that surround people. For some reason homosexuality is less frowned upon when it's women then when it's men, perhaps this is because many guys find women getting it on with each other attractive, I dunno.
That's what I've always suspected, like most guys are saying, "Okay, sure, maybe it's a sin or whatever, but I don't mind so much because it's hot."
\\\
so then lesbians are stereotyped and not taken seriously at all, which is really annoying. :(
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 26, 2012, 05:17:05 PM
so then lesbians are stereotyped and not taken seriously at all, which is really annoying. :(
Everyone falls into some sort of stereotype just ignore that nonsense.
This sounds like a group that doesn't really include many LGBT people. Aside from a few occurrences of the word "fag", the conversation has been un-derogatory. But there is a decided lack of advocacy, intimate knowledge of gayness, or discussion of why it's important that it not be suppressed in a mentally healthy society. I think maybe the urgency to have people understand and discuss gay issues, which are covered like a blanket by media of all stripes these days, would be more evident if there were more gay members. This is something I would welcome fully.
Quote from: rickrocks on June 26, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
This sounds like a group that doesn't really include many LGBT people. Aside from a few occurrences of the word "fag", the conversation has been un-derogatory. But there is a decided lack of advocacy, intimate knowledge of gayness, or discussion of why it's important that it not be suppressed in a mentally healthy society. I think maybe the urgency to have people understand and discuss gay issues, which are covered like a blanket by media of all stripes these days, would be more evident if there were more gay members. This is something I would welcome fully.
Are you talking about HAF? Because there are a number of LGBT members here.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 26, 2012, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: rickrocks on June 26, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
This sounds like a group that doesn't really include many LGBT people. Aside from a few occurrences of the word "fag", the conversation has been un-derogatory. But there is a decided lack of advocacy, intimate knowledge of gayness, or discussion of why it's important that it not be suppressed in a mentally healthy society. I think maybe the urgency to have people understand and discuss gay issues, which are covered like a blanket by media of all stripes these days, would be more evident if there were more gay members. This is something I would welcome fully.
Are you talking about HAF? Because there are a number of LGBT members here.
I'm unsure what you mean either. :< ?
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
When Asmo said "BURN THE FAG" he was playing on the idea that the British call cigarettes fags. Because he's Asmo and that's how he rolls. We may be irreverent, but we're not a homophobic group by any means.
ETA: Don't know why I was yelling Asmo's name. Fixed.
Quote from: Ali on June 26, 2012, 08:37:19 PM
When Asmo said "BURN THE FAG" he was playing on the idea that the British call cigarettes fags. Because he's Asmo and that's how he rolls. We may be irreverent, but we're not a homophobic group by any means.
ETA: Don't know why I was yelling Asmo's name. Fixed.
To add onto what Ali said.
This group is very deverse and open minded. :)
Quote from: rickrocks on June 26, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
This sounds like a group that doesn't really include many LGBT people. Aside from a few occurrences of the word "fag", the conversation has been un-derogatory. But there is a decided lack of advocacy, intimate knowledge of gayness, or discussion of why it's important that it not be suppressed in a mentally healthy society. I think maybe the urgency to have people understand and discuss gay issues, which are covered like a blanket by media of all stripes these days, would be more evident if there were more gay members. This is something I would welcome fully.
I must say I wouldn't welcome the introduction of gay advocacy, dissemination of intimate knowledge of gayness etc as significant components in this forum's conversations. If I was interested in gay issues I would have joined a forum dedicated to those selfsame issues.
Ditto if one of my passions in life was global warming or ethnic cleansing. As far as I'm concerned, the gay people here are atheists who happen to be gay; of course, that also makes them more likely to have suffered at the hands of religious zealots and to that indirect extent their sexuality has a relevance to the rationale for this forum.
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Why cant society just accept some people prefer men, some women, some both? Blondes, brunettes, redheads, tall, short, big eyes, small hands, long hair, short hair, big muscles, lean body...
We ALL have a preference. I am really sick of all this division just because of who we feel attracted to. It's really getting on my nerves.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 02:10:06 AM
Why cant society just accept some people prefer men, some women, some both? Blondes, brunettes, redheads, tall, short, big eyes, small hands, long hair, short hair, big muscles, lean body...
We ALL have a preference. I am really sick of all this division just because of who we feel attracted to. It's really getting on my nerves.
No flippin' idea, it gets on my nerves as well. As does the medias obsession with how women are portrayed, but I digress.
Quote from: Crow on June 27, 2012, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 02:10:06 AM
Why cant society just accept some people prefer men, some women, some both? Blondes, brunettes, redheads, tall, short, big eyes, small hands, long hair, short hair, big muscles, lean body...
We ALL have a preference. I am really sick of all this division just because of who we feel attracted to. It's really getting on my nerves.
No flippin' idea, it gets on my nerves as well. As does the medias obsession with how women are portrayed, but I digress.
I just don't like people being divided by something so stupid.
Don't get me started on the gay community. They annoy me just as much as any 'group' of people who want a stereotype attached to them >_<
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on June 26, 2012, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: rickrocks on June 26, 2012, 07:41:47 PM
This sounds like a group that doesn't really include many LGBT people. Aside from a few occurrences of the word "fag", the conversation has been un-derogatory. But there is a decided lack of advocacy, intimate knowledge of gayness, or discussion of why it's important that it not be suppressed in a mentally healthy society. I think maybe the urgency to have people understand and discuss gay issues, which are covered like a blanket by media of all stripes these days, would be more evident if there were more gay members. This is something I would welcome fully.
Are you talking about HAF? Because there are a number of LGBT members here.
I'll go out on a limb here and guess that as this is RRs first response to the thread he is responding to the OP. Taken in that context his comments make sense and fit with his previous attitude.
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic
I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or simply personal preference.
Consenting adults can choose to do whatever they like as long as they are not harming others. It is not of my business what people get upto in the bedroom and they certainly don't have to explain to me why that get upto whatever it is they get up to.
Quote from: Stevil on June 27, 2012, 09:17:12 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic
I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or simply personal preference.
Consenting adults can choose to do whatever they like as long as they are not harming others. It is not of my business what people get upto in the bedroom and they certainly don't have to explain to me why that get upto whatever it is they get up to.
ITA. I actually find the idea that people should be more tolerant of homosexuality because it's genetic to be patronizing and offensive. Like "Don't blame them, they just can't help themselves, the poor dears." Ugh! It doesn't matter
why a person is gay. What matters is that it's not anyone else's business what consenting adults do or who they have a relationship with.
Quote from: Ali on June 27, 2012, 04:34:16 PM
Quote from: Stevil on June 27, 2012, 09:17:12 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic
I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or simply personal preference.
Consenting adults can choose to do whatever they like as long as they are not harming others. It is not of my business what people get upto in the bedroom and they certainly don't have to explain to me why that get upto whatever it is they get up to.
ITA. I actually find the idea that people should be more tolerant of homosexuality because it's genetic to be patronizing and offensive. Like "Don't blame them, they just can't help themselves, the poor dears." Ugh! It doesn't matter why a person is gay. What matters is that it's not anyone else's business what consenting adults do or who they have a relationship with.
What Stevil and Ali said.
It doesn't matter why. All that matters are two consenting adults are able to do whatever they want in bed and in private. And if they wanna hold hands or kiss in public, oh well. I mean, gemme a break with so many damn religious brown nosers, wanting people to have boring, stale lives like them. No thanks :(
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 05:01:48 PM
No thanks :(
Indeed but be wary of those that build their walls high.
Quote from: Crow on July 04, 2012, 02:01:00 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 27, 2012, 05:01:48 PM
No thanks :(
Indeed but be wary of those that build their walls high.
I build my walls with cardboard and duct tape :)
I'm about as straight a guy as one could be. Because of some of my long term activities, I am acquainted with many lesbian women, some are out, some are closeted. I have long wondered why a disproportionant number of them are such high achievers. Several of my lesbian friends, are PHD level individuals and some more of them are business executives or hold very responsible jobs or political positions. Has anyone else noticed a trend of that sort or is this merely an unusual situation that has no basis?
Quote from: Icarus on July 08, 2012, 08:54:11 PM
Has anyone else noticed a trend of that sort or is this merely an unusual situation that has no basis?
I think it's a co-incidence and probably has more to do with your social level than anything else. Most of the lesbians I know are factory workers and clerks, but then that's the social level I'm at.
Quote from: Icarus on July 08, 2012, 08:54:11 PM
I'm about as straight a guy as one could be. Because of some of my long term activities, I am acquainted with many lesbian women, some are out, some are closeted. I have long wondered why a disproportionant number of them are such high achievers. Several of my lesbian friends, are PHD level individuals and some more of them are business executives or hold very responsible jobs or political positions. Has anyone else noticed a trend of that sort or is this merely an unusual situation that has no basis?
They seem to be everywhere, damn them. Where ever I look, gay, gay, gay.
But they do seem to have some commonalities, liking fashion, hairstyles, musicals.
Not sure why, maybe it is the straights that are trying too hard to avoid stereotypically "feminine" things.
Quote from: Stevil on July 08, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
maybe it is the straights that are trying too hard to avoid stereotypically "feminine" things.
Why would someone try to avoid some stupid ass stereotype? ???
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 08, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
maybe it is the straights that are trying too hard to avoid stereotypically "feminine" things.
Why would someone try to avoid some stupid ass stereotype? ???
People do,
Many guys won't wear pink, won't knit or sew, there are many guys who won't change diapers, won't even cook, won't listen to opera, musicals or watch ballet.
Many guys feel threatened or de-masculated doing certain things.
Image and social norms is hard for many to resist. Why is it that coffee is the choice of drink rather than tea or hot chocolate? Why do guys drink Beer and women Wine? Why is Coke cool and Fanta for kids?
Why do we celebrate with Champagne or propose with diamonds?
Are you 100% impervious to image?
Quote from: Stevil on July 08, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
Not sure why, maybe it is the straights that are trying too hard to avoid stereotypically "feminine" things.
I don't I prefer androgynous stuff, but I think there is a bit of truth to that.
Quote from: Stevil on July 09, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
Many guys won't wear pink, won't knit or sew, there are many guys who won't even cook, won't listen to opera, musicals or watch ballet.
If this is what qualified a person being gay then I would be well gay, I also were pastels:o. I would probably say that those guys are insecure about there sexuality, or just ignorant and haven't actually experienced any of it due to there insecurities about what others think of them.
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2012, 12:21:42 AM
If this is what qualified a person being gay then I would be well gay, I also were pastels:o. I would probably say that those guys are insecure about there sexuality, or just ignorant and haven't actually experienced any of it due to there insecurities about what others think of them.
Some cultures value macho-ness, as a quality of a true man :-)
NZ is caught up in this. Our Rugby players are almost god-like, big strong brutes, smashing down the opposition.
I feel Macho is very much a part of the Maori culture and has influenced NZ culture. I'm not sure how much exposure you have had to the Maori culture but they value aggressiveness, strength and fight. The pōwhiri (pronounce Po Firi) often has a Maori male dressed in battle attire, carrying a taiaha spear (pronounced tie aha) a weapon, brandishing, having aggressive looks (starey eyes, poking tongue) speaking aggressively, coming at you. It can be very intimidating if you don't know that it is a welcome.
Quite different to Samoan or Tongan culture which seems much more passive.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 12:06:11 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 08, 2012, 11:23:24 PM
maybe it is the straights that are trying too hard to avoid stereotypically "feminine" things.
Why would someone try to avoid some stupid ass stereotype? ???
No fucking idea. ???
Quote from: Stevil on July 09, 2012, 12:14:03 AM
People do
...Apparently.
QuoteMany guys won't wear pink
If you can make it look good - go for it, is what I say. Have pink shoes. Very cool.
Quotewon't knit or sew
Can relate, but the only reason is I find it rather boring.
Quotethere are many guys who won't change diapers
Ugh..! No dirty jobs, thanks.
Quotewon't even cook
I cook. I can cancer-fry meat based products and microwave-irradiate heat-and-go foods. That's cooking. It IS.
Quotewon't listen to opera, musicals or watch ballet
Tried that opera thing once... Didn't like it. Too much touchy-feely romance. Same goes for the one, maybe two musicals I've watched... Ballet? Probably more of the same, although it is fun watching street dancing.
QuoteImage and social norms is hard for many to resist. Why is it that coffee is the choice of drink rather than tea or hot chocolate?
Is it though? I think most people here drink coffee rather than tea or hot chocolate, but I also think it's more a matter of getting that caffeine fix than of not deviating from the norm.
QuoteWhy do guys drink Beer and women Wine? Why is Coke cool and Fanta for kids?
I find that rather unrelateable. Wine is marginally better than beer, and so in my usual company, we usually have wine when the occasion calls for alcohol. And if I do buy something with bubbles in it, it's usually an orange thing.
QuoteWhy do we celebrate with Champagne or propose with diamonds?
Again, sort of unrelateable. We celebrate with pizza. No idea how people propose, but I think gold is rather popular.
QuoteAre you 100% impervious to image?
You tell me...
How straight and manly and stereotypical am I?
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 AM
Quotethere are many guys who won't change diapers
Ugh..! No dirty jobs, thanks.
You don't have to like it to do it.
My wife took time off work to look after the young kids, when I am home, I do as much of this as possible to give her a break from it.
My father brags that he has never done it. I find this sad, I feel sorry for my mother sometimes.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 AM
Quotewon't listen to opera, musicals or watch ballet
Tried that opera thing once... Didn't like it. Too much touchy-feely romance. Same goes for the one, maybe two musicals I've watched... Ballet? Probably more of the same, although it is fun watching street dancing.
I like Sarah Brightman, I also like symphonic metal, Nightwish, Within Temptation...
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 AM
QuoteImage and social norms is hard for many to resist. Why is it that coffee is the choice of drink rather than tea or hot chocolate?
Is it though? I think most people here drink coffee rather than tea or hot chocolate, but I also think it's more a matter of getting that caffeine fix than of not deviating from the norm.
I never drink coffee, can't stand it. I notice that I get a few looks at work when I ask for Hot Chocolate rather than coffee.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 AM
QuoteWhy do guys drink Beer and women Wine? Why is Coke cool and Fanta for kids?
I find that rather unrelateable. Wine is marginally better than beer, and so in my usual company, we usually have wine when the occasion calls for alcohol. And if I do buy something with bubbles in it, it's usually an orange thing.
I can't stand wine, and notice that at formal do's they seem to provide wine and not beer, the suggestion is that wine is more refined. To me it is just a different flavour, I don't buy into the image that marketing and advertise would have you live your life by.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 02:55:31 AM
How straight and manly and stereotypical am I?
I don't know you well enough to answer that. I certainly fall for some image stuff myself, I am not immune. I think most people fall for it to some degree. You do have an image though, I've seen your Emo photo.
I love men who dont put 'gender' to color.
color is color. I never fucking got the pink thing. In asian tho, it's more than normal to see lots of guys, young and old , dressed in pink.
Quote from: Stevil on July 09, 2012, 03:10:37 AM
You do have an image though, I've seen your Emo photo.
I'm just wearing eyeliner and a Korn hoodie in it. Why..? Because I really like what I see in the mirror when I go for that look. There is no image attached to it from my side. How others see it is, frankly, their business. I'm too icy and emotionless for any kind of emo-label in my own opinion.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 03:31:42 AM
Quote from: Stevil on July 09, 2012, 03:10:37 AM
You do have an image though, I've seen your Emo photo.
I'm just wearing eyeliner and a Korn hoodie in it. Why..? Because I really like what I see in the mirror when I go for that look. There is no image attached to it from my side. How others see it is, frankly, their business. I'm too icy and emotionless for any kind of emo-label in my own opinion.
I dislike labels as well.
And people tend to love to group certain people together, then the stereotypes come.. It's so irritating.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 09, 2012, 03:56:08 AM
I dislike labels as well.
And people tend to love to group certain people together, then the stereotypes come.. It's so irritating.
It's the whole tribal nature of human society. People usually tend to want to be around people that are like minded and be associated as one, it doesn't always have to be about the way they dress but that is the most obvious case, people in groups are usually influence each by each other so its not surprising that they all start to conform to a group look, the thing is everyone can be placed in a group (usually more than one) whether they like it or not and probably can be stereotyped. You can fight it and pretend your the true individual or you can accept there are other people that are similar to yourself and that you are happy to be associated with them. If you accept that you might hit a few of the cliches but "cool that's just me" then it stops being annoying and also other groups of people being annoying.
I live in a city where close-minded culture is the masses by far which tends to also apply to the counter cultures, I don't necessarily mean people are unintelligent but people want you too conform, this use to irk the fuck out of me and was why I preferred cities like London and Liverpool where the Bohemia cultures . Now it doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I know I conform to a little tribe and choose to live in the area where it is prominently full of similar people and commerce that is geared towards people like myself and that there are lots of different variations that people want to be associated with, each to their own and all that.
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2012, 12:45:22 PM
People usually tend to want to be around people that are like minded and be associated as one
Yes, I think that line explains it in my case. I have not found too many people who I consider like-minded in all the important things, and those who are do not fit a single label... Well, Asmoist, perhaps, but that is not too widespread. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on July 09, 2012, 05:24:04 PM
Quote from: Crow on July 09, 2012, 12:45:22 PM
People usually tend to want to be around people that are like minded and be associated as one
Yes, I think that line explains it in my case. I have not found too many people who I consider like-minded in all the important things, and those who are do not fit a single label... Well, Asmoist, perhaps, but that is not too widespread. :D
You can conform them, Asmo. Or let us minions do it for you. ;)
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
There is so such entity as Nature. It is a metaphor. Evolution is a process; it is not directed towards achieving any ultimate objective. The blind watchmaker did not set out to make a watch.
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 01:48:14 PM
There is so such entity as Nature. It is a metaphor. Evolution is a process; it is not directed towards achieving any ultimate objective. The blind watchmaker did not set out to make a watch.
...And he wasn't even a watchmaker... Or a he... Or blind in any sort of conventional sense, really.
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I don't agree, natural selection has no purpose it is a mindless natural process in a sense like gravity which cares not what it draws together. There is no grand purpose in results of evolution any more than there is design in any creature.
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I often find incidentally than when people preface their remarks with the exclamation "nonsense" , it turns out to be a declaration of intent.
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I'm not sure calling somebodies comment 'nonsense' adds to the value of the discussion. Maybe a more focused and objective response would illicit a response in kind.
I think believing that evolution has "intent" is a trick of hindsight. Looking back, we can see that "A" evolved into "B" then "C". So we think "A" evolved into "B" TO evolve into "C". Evolution is "directional" in that it's a process that happens over time, but I don't think it's "directed" with regards to intent, purpose, or anything like that.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 15, 2012, 05:56:50 PM
I think believing that evolution has "intent" is a trick of hindsight. Looking back, we can see that "A" evolved into "B" then "C". So we think "A" evolved into "B" TO evolve into "C". Evolution is "directional" in that it's a process that happens over time, but I don't think it's "directed" with regards to intent, purpose, or anything like that.
In fact, believing there is any intentionality underlying the process of evolution not only demonstrates a fundamental and misunderstanding of how it works but also begs the obvious question- whose intention?
Quote from: Tank on July 15, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I don't agree, natural selection has no purpose it is a mindless natural process in a sense like gravity which cares not what it draws together.
The purpose of natural selection is to maximise sexual gratification. Having sex with beautiful is apparently more satisfying than having sex with ugly.
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 15, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I don't agree, natural selection has no purpose it is a mindless natural process in a sense like gravity which cares not what it draws together.
The purpose of natural selection is to maximise sexual gratification. Having sex with beautiful is apparently more satisfying than having sex with ugly.
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Each and every participant, it's a personal choice.
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:27:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Each and every participant, it's a personal choice.
You've lost me here completely.
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 15, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I don't agree, natural selection has no purpose it is a mindless natural process in a sense like gravity which cares not what it draws together.
The purpose of natural selection is to maximise sexual gratification. Having sex with beautiful is apparently more satisfying than having sex with ugly.
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Population control, maybe?
who honestly cares why.
::)
for some i do believe they choose to like both genders or the same. For others, i'm sure it's biologically encoded.
why make such a fuss? are gays and bisexuals REALLY hurting
anyone?
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:53:46 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:27:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Each and every participant, it's a personal choice.
You've lost me here completely.
Tell me,
When you are physically attracted to someone, are you thinking about the advantageousness of your offspring or are you thinking about how great the sex will be?
As a collective this is all it is about, individual preference, personal choice. There is no greater purpose, no objectivity, just simply the individual desire for great sex.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 10:36:23 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:53:46 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:27:09 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Each and every participant, it's a personal choice.
You've lost me here completely.
Tell me,
When you are physically attracted to someone, are you thinking about the advantageousness of your offspring or are you thinking about how great the sex will be?
As a collective this is all it is about, individual preference, personal choice. There is no greater purpose, no objectivity, just simply the individual desire for great sex.
I made the original point that natural selection has no underlying puroose to which you countered that the purpose was to have great sex. In fact, what you seemed to have meant, was that the desire to have great sex which is in your view a purpose of human beings , is the engine for natural selection, which is quite different. I think your account of human sexual behaviour is rather one- dimensional and misleading but that is a another days work, or possibly several weeks' work.
Why are we still arguing this? ??? ???
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 09:51:16 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 15, 2012, 08:23:53 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 15, 2012, 08:15:55 PM
Quote from: Tank on July 15, 2012, 04:55:21 PM
Quote from: cncracer on July 15, 2012, 12:44:50 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 27, 2012, 12:08:20 AM
Quote from: cncracer on June 26, 2012, 08:26:57 PM
I think it is genetic, and nature may be trying to correct the over population of humans by shifting a few genes around. Wish she had shifted a few genes in the religious rights brains before she shifted the sex genes. It would have made it a lot easier to live with them on the same planet.
There is no purpose or end- game underpinning the laws of nature.
Nonsense, nature is always adjusting and making directional changes. It is called Evolution.
I don't agree, natural selection has no purpose it is a mindless natural process in a sense like gravity which cares not what it draws together.
The purpose of natural selection is to maximise sexual gratification. Having sex with beautiful is apparently more satisfying than having sex with ugly.
So who or what set up natural selection to achieve this hitherto unsuspected purpose?
Population control, maybe?
who honestly cares why.
::)
for some i do believe they choose to like both genders or the same. For others, i'm sure it's biologically encoded.
why make such a fuss? are gays and bisexuals REALLY hurting anyone?
I agree that the whys and wherefors of people's sexuality is of no significance in terms of how they should be treated. Discrimination against gay and bi-sexual people is founded on fear and ignorace, often exacerbated or entrenched by religious teaching. The argument has however broadened out to discuss more generally the fallacyb that natural selection is a mechanism guided by some unseen force which seeks to benevolently restrain population numbers.
Quote from: SweetdeathWhy are we still arguing this? ??? ???
Because they like arguing. ;)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 10:58:56 AM
Why are we still arguing this? ??? ???
Because we consider there is an issue on which we disagree.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 11:13:37 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on July 16, 2012, 10:58:56 AM
Why are we still arguing this? ??? ???
Because we consider there is an issue on which we disagree.
And as the sage Mosieur Git notes, also because we like arguing.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
I made the original point that natural selection has no underlying puroose to which you countered that the purpose was to have great sex. In fact, what you seemed to have meant, was that the desire to have great sex which is in your view a purpose of human beings , is the engine for natural selection, which is quite different. I think your account of human sexual behaviour is rather one- dimensional and misleading but that is a another days work, or possibly several weeks' work.
I don't think that there is an objective mandate with regards to a purpose.
Individually it is quite different though. We seem motivated towards a desire for great sex. Thus I feel, at least on a shallow level we desire, or take action towards a person that we think will help acheive this goal. It is all part of the natural selection process. Those that survive and are desirable are the most likely to have sex with others whom are also desirable. This could be seen as a purpose.
As a species we seem to go for physical attraction, i'm not sure how people can deny this. Or course, it is not the be all and end all. Some people also go for wealth and power.
We can be selfrighteous and suggest we go for love and that connection, but all things being equal, we go for beauty, if we don't know people, we want to approach and get to know the good looking ones. Most of us feel the need to at least be physically attracted to our partners.
BTW: I wouldn't consider this as an arguement, merely clarification of opinions.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
I made the original point that natural selection has no underlying puroose to which you countered that the purpose was to have great sex. In fact, what you seemed to have meant, was that the desire to have great sex which is in your view a purpose of human beings , is the engine for natural selection, which is quite different. I think your account of human sexual behaviour is rather one- dimensional and misleading but that is a another days work, or possibly several weeks' work.
I don't think that there is an objective mandate with regards to a purpose.
Individually it is quite different though. We seem motivated towards a desire for great sex. Thus I feel, at least on a shallow level we desire, or take action towards a person that we think will help acheive this goal. It is all part of the natural selection process. Those that survive and are desirable are the most likely to have sex with others whom are also desirable. This could be seen as a purpose.
As a species we seem to go for physical attraction, i'm not sure how people can deny this. Or course, it is not the be all and end all. Some people also go for wealth and power.
We can be selfrighteous and suggest we go for love and that connection, but all things being equal, we go for beauty, if we don't know people, we want to approach and get to know the good looking ones. Most of us feel the need to at least be physically attracted to our partners.
BTW: I wouldn't consider this as an arguement, merely clarification of opinions.
I agree with this whole-heartily.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 11:26:44 AM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 10:56:24 AM
I made the original point that natural selection has no underlying puroose to which you countered that the purpose was to have great sex. In fact, what you seemed to have meant, was that the desire to have great sex which is in your view a purpose of human beings , is the engine for natural selection, which is quite different. I think your account of human sexual behaviour is rather one- dimensional and misleading but that is a another days work, or possibly several weeks' work.
I don't think that there is an objective mandate with regards to a purpose.
Individually it is quite different though. We seem motivated towards a desire for great sex. Thus I feel, at least on a shallow level we desire, or take action towards a person that we think will help acheive this goal. It is all part of the natural selection process. Those that survive and are desirable are the most likely to have sex with others whom are also desirable. This could be seen as a purpose.
As a species we seem to go for physical attraction, i'm not sure how people can deny this. Or course, it is not the be all and end all. Some people also go for wealth and power.
We can be selfrighteous and suggest we go for love and that connection, but all things being equal, we go for beauty, if we don't know people, we want to approach and get to iknow the good looking ones. Most of us feel the need to at least be physically attracted to our partners.
BTW: I wouldn't consider this as an arguement, merely clarification of opinions.
I think this is an argument given that we are advocating different conclusions. But a friendly one. Fuck, now we are arguing about whether we are arguing. Or are we merely clarifying our opinions as to whether we are arguing?
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 11:26:44 AM
We can be selfrighteous and suggest we go for love and that connection, but all things being equal, we go for beauty, if we don't know people, we want to approach and get to know the good looking ones. Most of us feel the need to at least be physically attracted to our partners.
I don't know how true this is for women, tho it may be generally true for men. When it comes to sex, women's priorities tend to be more complicated just because our end of reproduction tends to be more complicated and I think this holds true even if a woman is not consciously looking for a future father-of-my-kids, or even looking for a man. I think evolution gears women to look more for protection and security rather than just pretty -- altho that's part of it too, esp. considering some regard good looks as a marker for good health.
Which does bring us back to the original topic, which I think was "what evolutionary function does homosexuality serve?" Not sure, tho it sure as heck is popular all across the animal kingdom, esp. among mammals. Of course, in the animal kingdom overall, homosexuality usually expresses itself as bisexuality and not as an exclusive orientation. I think we humans may be unique there, and that's probably more a function of culture than evolution.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 12:56:31 PM
Fuck now we are arguing about whether we are arguing. Or are we merely clarifying our opinions as to whether we are arguing?
:D
I think it's interesting that Stevil concludes that we look for "pretty" because pretty = great sex. Is that everyone else's experience, that pretty = great sex? Maybe I'm not that visual, but give me "funny" and "eager to please" over pretty any day of the week. ;D
When applied to human faces adjectives like Pretty and Beautiful etc. often indicate lateral symmetry which is indicative of an unmutated gene structure.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 04:28:21 PM
I think it's interesting that Stevil concludes that we look for "pretty" because pretty = great sex. Is that everyone else's experience, that pretty = great sex? Maybe I'm not that visual, but give me "funny" and "eager to please" over pretty any day of the week. ;D
I think men do rate physical attractiveness very highly. Too highly for their own good quite often. Pretty is rather an anaemic term; voluptuous is perhaps more descriptive of what presses our hot button.
In determining what makes for great sex, I think in many respects it's a question of mind over matter. Imagination and generosity far out- rank athleticism or perfection of physique in the bedroom ( or preferably out of it).
As they say, we all look the same in the dark....
Or as we Brits put it: 'You don't look at the mantlepiece when you poke the fire'.
Quote from: OldGit on July 16, 2012, 06:33:58 PM
Or as we Brits put it: 'You don't look at the mantlepiece when you poke the fire'.
LMAO. That's awesome. I guess the American equivalent is "Put a flag over his head and ride him for Freedom." ;)
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: OldGit on July 16, 2012, 06:33:58 PM
Or as we Brits put it: 'You don't look at the mantlepiece when you poke the fire'.
LMAO. That's awesome. I guess the American equivalent is "Put a flag over his head and ride him for Freedom." ;)
LMAO!!!
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 16, 2012, 02:15:12 PM
I don't know how true this is for women, tho it may be generally true for men. When it comes to sex, women's priorities tend to be more complicated just because our end of reproduction tends to be more complicated and I think this holds true even if a woman is not consciously looking for a future father-of-my-kids, or even looking for a man. I think evolution gears women to look more for protection and security rather than just pretty -- altho that's part of it too, esp. considering some regard good looks as a marker for good health.
Why is/was Brad Pitt considered sexy, or Antonio Banderas...
I don't buy it that women don't have aesthetic preferences in men.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 05:26:07 PM
In determining what makes for great sex, I think in many respects it's a question of mind over matter. Imagination and generosity far out- rank athleticism or perfection of physique in the bedroom ( or preferably out of it).
When we don't know a person, we approach the good lookers.
We certainly don't know what they are like at sex until its too late.
I am only suggesting that we tend to go for beauty because we assume it leads to great sex.
I don't think we do it for advantageous offspring, when I picked my partner I certainly wasn't considering what my kids would look like.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 16, 2012, 02:15:12 PM
I don't know how true this is for women, tho it may be generally true for men. When it comes to sex, women's priorities tend to be more complicated just because our end of reproduction tends to be more complicated and I think this holds true even if a woman is not consciously looking for a future father-of-my-kids, or even looking for a man. I think evolution gears women to look more for protection and security rather than just pretty -- altho that's part of it too, esp. considering some regard good looks as a marker for good health.
Why is/was Brad Pitt considered sexy, or Antonio Banderas...
I don't buy it that women don't have aesthetic preferences in men.
Me neither :P Though, I'm not sure that's what anyone was saying.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 16, 2012, 08:23:16 PM
Me neither :P Though, I'm not sure that's what anyone was saying.
Calling someone sexy would imply that they would make for good sex?
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 05:26:07 PM
In determining what makes for great sex, I think in many respects it's a question of mind over matter. Imagination and generosity far out- rank athleticism or perfection of physique in the bedroom ( or preferably out of it).
Depends on the type of sex, if you want a good fucking then athleticism and strength certainly come into it. Otherwise yeah I'd agree. As long as each individual puts in approximately the same amount of effort then its usually good.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:14:47 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 16, 2012, 02:15:12 PM
I don't know how true this is for women, tho it may be generally true for men. When it comes to sex, women's priorities tend to be more complicated just because our end of reproduction tends to be more complicated and I think this holds true even if a woman is not consciously looking for a future father-of-my-kids, or even looking for a man. I think evolution gears women to look more for protection and security rather than just pretty -- altho that's part of it too, esp. considering some regard good looks as a marker for good health.
Why is/was Brad Pitt considered sexy, or Antonio Banderas...
I don't buy it that women don't have aesthetic preferences in men.
Sure they do. It's just more complicated than that.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:36:28 PM
Sure they do. It's just more complicated than that.
Yes, I find most women to be complex.
Quote from: Crow on July 16, 2012, 08:32:12 PM
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 05:26:07 PM
In determining what makes for great sex, I think in many respects it's a question of mind over matter. Imagination and generosity far out- rank athleticism or perfection of physique in the bedroom ( or preferably out of it).
Depends on the type of sex, if you want a good fucking then athleticism and strength certainly come into it. Otherwise yeah I'd agree. As long as each individual puts in approximately the same amount of effort then its usually good.
.It's maybe the difference between an erotic masterwork and a wham bam thank you ma'am porno production. Being rather more proficient on the imaginative than the athletic front, this could of course be special pleading on my part.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:29:15 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 16, 2012, 08:23:16 PM
Me neither :P Though, I'm not sure that's what anyone was saying.
Calling someone sexy would imply that they would make for good sex?
Who's calling them sexy? Personally, I don't think Antonio Banderas is worth writing home about, though I guess some people like his accent?
Anyone who categorical labels guys as "sexy" or "not sexy" would probably agree with you about women finding men's appearance an attraction factor. I'm one of those women, I definitely have a physical/appearance "type" and I know it. But was there someone here who said that a man was "sexy" but implied that appearance had nothing to do with it? Maybe there was and I missed it, but most people just seem to be saying the women tend to be a little bit more complicated when it comes to finding someone attractive. I mostly agree with that.
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
But natural selection is real. One can't simply dismiss it or we're into woo and lala land speculation.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
I think it has as much to do with ugly people being aesthetically repulsive as with the pretty people being aesthetically pleasing.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
To a point, I have no idea. One of my friends has a thing for olive-skinned guys. I tend to like broad, scruffy guys with dark features. I had a prof who likes red-heads of both genders. Why do we have these preferences? Who knows. Why do we have a favourite kind of food? Why does one painting appeal to us over another? I'm sure there are evolutionary factors, but I doubt we'll ever be able to figure what they all are any time soon.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 16, 2012, 08:50:49 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
I think it has as much to do with ugly people being aesthetically repulsive as with the pretty people being aesthetically pleasing.
Ouch!
Stevil, I kind of think it has to be some sort of natural selection or subconscious thing (like Tank was talking about, where a symetrical face is more pleasing because it signifies good healthy genes.) Otherwise, why is anything attractive at all? Like, why would we find one trait (let's say a straight nose) more attractive than another (let's say a hooked nose.) It seems totally arbitrary if it isn't somehow built into our genes.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
I think to myself she looks like a healthy, efficient child- bearer who can be trusted to propagate my invaluable genes . I owe it to humanity to give her a good seeing to.
Quote from: Tank on July 16, 2012, 08:49:35 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
But natural selection is real. One can't simply dismiss it or we're into woo and lala land speculation.
On an individual level, why do we select? Why won't just any partner do? Why do we dream of sexy people? Why do some of us see a sexy person and wonder how great it would be to have sex with them? Yet we see an unattractive person and don't think about sex at all.
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
I think to myself she looks like a healthy, efficient child- bearer who can be trusted to propagate my invaluable genes . I owe it to humanity to give her a good seeing to.
Such a romantic! :D
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Ouch!
What? Crimson is red, a car is a vehicle and ugly is repulsive. ???
Quote from: En_Route on July 16, 2012, 08:55:54 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:46:41 PM
Anyone else have any theories on why we desire good looking people?
Make it real, don't just say natural selection, why are you personally attracted to a good looking person? What goes through your conscious mind?
I think to myself she looks like a healthy, efficient child- bearer who can be trusted to propagate my invaluable genes . I owe it to humanity to give her a good seeing to.
Humanity thanks you for taking one (or many) for the team.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 16, 2012, 08:57:47 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Ouch!
What? Crimson is red, a car is a vehicle and ugly is repulsive. ???
Repulsive is an adjective that goes much deeper than merely "ugly." "Ugly" simply means "not physically attractive." "Repulsive" is something that makes your skin crawl, or disgusts you. I've seen plenty of unattractive people in my 32 years, but very few of them have actually made my skin crawl.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
Humanity thanks you for taking one (or many) for the team.
That is good. I resent it bitterly, but it is good.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Stevil, I kind of think it has to be some sort of natural selection or subconscious thing (like Tank was talking about, where a symetrical face is more pleasing because it signifies good healthy genes.) Otherwise, why is anything attractive at all? Like, why would we find one trait (let's say a straight nose) more attractive than another (let's say a hooked nose.) It seems totally arbitrary if it isn't somehow built into our genes.
But on a personal level. Conscious level.
What is it that you want to do to a beautiful person, but not necessarily what you want to do to other beautiful things (like a new pair of shoes)
We have sexual desires don't we? Can you not admit that superficially we want to have sex with beautiful people? (even if it is just an urge). I know when we go that step further into reality we assess other things as well e.g. personality, career, wealth...
But if we tend towards beautiful then they have an advantage, they get more opportunity with regards to people breaking the ice and getting to know them.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Stevil, I kind of think it has to be some sort of natural selection or subconscious thing (like Tank was talking about, where a symetrical face is more pleasing because it signifies good healthy genes.) Otherwise, why is anything attractive at all? Like, why would we find one trait (let's say a straight nose) more attractive than another (let's say a hooked nose.) It seems totally arbitrary if it isn't somehow built into our genes.
But on a personal level. Conscious level.
What is it that you want to do to a beautiful person, but not necessarily what you want to do to other beautiful things (like a new pair of shoes)
We have sexual desires don't we? Can you not admit that superficially we want to have sex with beautiful people? (even if it is just an urge). I know when we go that step further into reality we assess other things as well e.g. personality, career, wealth...
But if we tend towards beautiful then they have an advantage, they get more opportunity with regards to people breaking the ice and getting to know them.
Maybe I'm a big weirdo, but I really don't want to have sex with "beautiful people." At least not right off. When I see a gorgeous man (or woman) I will of course notice that they are attractive, but "Oh man, I really want a piece of that ass" doesn't usually cross my mind. Wanting to have sex with someone is a state I have to work my way up to, and that involves a lot more than noticing their symetrical features.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
But if we tend towards beautiful then they have an advantage, they get more opportunity with regards to people breaking the ice and getting to know them.
I think it's a pretty well documented fact that attractive people get treated better and have more advantages than non-attractive people in many areas of life. It's not fair, and I certainly try to treat everyone the same when I should, but it is true.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 08:54:05 PM
Stevil, I kind of think it has to be some sort of natural selection or subconscious thing (like Tank was talking about, where a symetrical face is more pleasing because it signifies good healthy genes.) Otherwise, why is anything attractive at all? Like, why would we find one trait (let's say a straight nose) more attractive than another (let's say a hooked nose.) It seems totally arbitrary if it isn't somehow built into our genes.
But on a personal level. Conscious level.
What is it that you want to do to a beautiful person, but not necessarily what you want to do to other beautiful things (like a new pair of shoes)
We have sexual desires don't we? Can you not admit that superficially we want to have sex with beautiful people? (even if it is just an urge). I know when we go that step further into reality we assess other things as well e.g. personality, career, wealth...
But if we tend towards beautiful then they have an advantage, they get more opportunity with regards to people breaking the ice and getting to know them.
Yes, I'll grant that most of us harbour sexual desires. I don't agree that we are necessarily turned on the most by classically good- looking members of the gender or genders to which we are sexually drawn. There is a vibe that attracts you, in which appearance will play a part but which for most people will not be the sole determinant. That tends to be more pronounced with women who are sexually attracted towards a gamut of qualities, I also know some femmes fatales who are by no means exceptional in terms of their physical allure but command instant male attention when they flounce into the room.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 16, 2012, 09:16:38 PM
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 09:11:42 PM
But if we tend towards beautiful then they have an advantage, they get more opportunity with regards to people breaking the ice and getting to know them.
I think it's a pretty well documented fact that attractive people get treated better and have more advantages than non-attractive people in many areas of life. It's not fair, and I certainly try to treat everyone the same when I should, but it is true.
It's not all upside you know. I was perpetually haunted by the fear that women just wanted me for my body.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 09:02:52 PM
Repulsive is an adjective that goes much deeper than merely "ugly." "Ugly" simply means "not physically attractive." "Repulsive" is something that makes your skin crawl, or disgusts you. I've seen plenty of unattractive people in my 32 years, but very few of them have actually made my skin crawl.
I define repulsive as "something that repulses", from "repulse" as in akin to "repel". My definition is far less emotionally laden than the one you propose, and means little beyond that I more or less have to be forced to have a close personal relationship with someone I find ugly.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 16, 2012, 09:28:12 PM
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 09:02:52 PM
Repulsive is an adjective that goes much deeper than merely "ugly." "Ugly" simply means "not physically attractive." "Repulsive" is something that makes your skin crawl, or disgusts you. I've seen plenty of unattractive people in my 32 years, but very few of them have actually made my skin crawl.
I define repulsive as "something that repulses", from "repulse" as in akin to "repel". My definition is far less emotionally laden than the one you propose, and means little beyond that I more or less have to be forced to have a close personal relationship with someone I find ugly.
Even as friends?
Of course. How could a -5 on a 1-10 pretty-scale become my friend in the first place?
Oh, I can have respect for that person's work, intellect or whatever, but a close personal relationship..? No.
.....Then I can't see how my definition of repulsive is any more emotionally laden than yours.
When I like someone (as in, enjoy their personality) they become more attractive in my eyes. But it doesn't matter, because why would you "need" to find your friend attractive?
Your definition of repulsive invokes a "Yuck!"-reaction. My definition does not.
I do not need to find my friends attractive - average will do. What will not do, however, is someone who looks like shit to such a degree that I have absolutely no interest in hanging out or having any face to face communication with them.
I do dig deeper than skin, but to use a parallel: would you dive into the ocean if its surface was covered in five centimeters of excrement, no matter how pristine the waters below? Me, I'm finicky that way.
Are we talking about excrement that is self imposed (for example, someone who has chronically greasy stringy hair because they don't bathe often enough) or excrement that is the chance result of genetics (for example, an unfortunate nose)? I agree that I don't typically want to spend time with someone who can't be bothered to care for their basic hygene needs (clean body, clean hair, clean teeth, and clean clothes) but it wouldn't bother me to be friends with someone who just happens to have unfortunate features. Obviously there are different things that can be done with hair, flattering clothing, make up, et cetera, but when it comes right down to it, aren't pleasing facial features (or the lack there of) kind of just the luck of the draw? I mean, I know I for one, did not choose to be graced with the face of an angel, it's just a happy coincidence.* ;D
*In case it's not obvious, I'm totally joking.
Whatever the excrement is, I'm not free-diving through it.
Quote from: Ali on July 16, 2012, 04:28:21 PM
I think it's interesting that Stevil concludes that we look for "pretty" because pretty = great sex. Is that everyone else's experience, that pretty = great sex? Maybe I'm not that visual, but give me "funny" and "eager to please" over pretty any day of the week. ;D
Are we talking here-and-now in the conscious, or in the over the process of evolution sub-conscious? If the latter and pretty was a marker for healthy, then yeah, I can see the better than average sex and it's outcome (healthier kids) creating a lasting assumption.
If it's the conscious here-and-now stuff that gets added on to that, I'd have to say no to the pretty = good sex. In fact, too often I've heard that pretty people end up resting on their physical laurels and being unimaginative and lazy about sex.
Or so I've heard. Frankly I'm usually too intimidated by really pretty people to get that familiar with them. In any case my biggest turn on is someone who can make me laugh, I can be an absolute whore for funny.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on July 17, 2012, 01:22:20 AM
If it's the conscious here-and-now stuff that gets added on to that, I'd have to say no to the pretty = good sex. In fact, too often I've heard that pretty people end up resting on their physical laurels and being unimaginative and lazy about sex.
Or so I've heard. Frankly I'm usually too intimidated by really pretty people to get that familiar with them. In any case my biggest turn on is someone who can make me laugh, I can be an absolute whore for funny.
"whore for funny"... I like that.
Quote from: Stevil on July 16, 2012, 08:18:20 PM
I am only suggesting that we tend to go for beauty because we assume it leads to great sex.
I don't think we do it for advantageous offspring, when I picked my partner I certainly wasn't considering what my kids would look like.
But again, are we talking about something evolution hard-wired into our subconscious, or something else that's part of our conscious personality and preferences? Because I think both are at play when we're attracted to someone.
I know I have a definite type -- I like men who look like Keith Carradine and women who look like my girlfriend (short, curvy and giggly). Altho I can't say I'd assume good sex based on that alone, it would just make me think "hmmm, not bad" about them.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on July 17, 2012, 01:28:09 AM
"whore for funny"... I like that.
All things being equal, if you can make me laugh you can have me. For awhile. It's not dignified, but there it is.
Quote from: asmodeanOf course. How could a -5 on a 1-10 pretty-scale become my friend in the first place?
Oh, I can have respect for that person's work, intellect or whatever, but a close personal relationship..? No.
You mean this? Or your leg pulling?
Quote from: technolud on July 17, 2012, 02:48:23 AM
Quote from: asmodeanOf course. How could a -5 on a 1-10 pretty-scale become my friend in the first place?
Oh, I can have respect for that person's work, intellect or whatever, but a close personal relationship..? No.
You mean this? Or your leg pulling?
Of course I mean it. Why wouldn't I?
Quote from: asmodeanOf course I mean it. Why wouldn't I?
Just seems there are a lot of things on the close personal relationship scale come ahead of the the pretty scale.
Everyone has a different type. Shouldnt we accept our awesome preferences?
Sure, some like the big muscles, asymetrical face or wide hips, but not everyone does.
Me, for instance likes small, small hips ( i only am attracted to Japanese men and women for the most part)--- and gotta have something unique about their face. A 'perfect' model or person just doesn't exist. I like people who admit to liking the differences in people.
As far as sex-- looks have nothing to do with it. :P
Quote from: technolud on July 17, 2012, 04:09:17 AM
Just seems there are a lot of things on the close personal relationship scale come ahead of the the pretty scale.
The first thing that usually greets me in a face to face meeting with a person is that person's face. If I dislike looking at it, why sould I still want to dig deeper to discover the wonderful aspects of their personality? I'm lucky enough to know some great people who manage to combine a personality compatible with my own with looks ranging from not disagreeable to 8-9 on the abovementioned scale, so... No real loss for me. Why lower my standards in the name of political correctness?
It's not about maintaining a close personal relationship - it's about establishing new ones. If a friend of mine took a shotgun blast to the face, we would likely still be friends. However, if I met a shotgun to the face survivor I had no prior dealings with, I'd not be open for any kind of relationship beyond professional as colleagues or service provider vs. customer.
That's an interesting perspective, Asmo.
(sorry, but i cant look at that poor woman who was maimed by the Chimp in US, without nightmares.) :'(
Quote from: asmodeanThe first thing that usually greets me in a face to face meeting with a person is that person's face. If I dislike looking at it, why sould I still want to dig deeper to discover the wonderful aspects of their personality?
Undoubtedly its true, you can pick your friends for any reason you wish.
Quote from: technolud on July 17, 2012, 11:08:18 AM
Undoubtedly its true, you can pick your friends for any reason you wish.
Yes, and I pick mine after having been picked by them, unless I dislike them for whatever reason.