[R.M. Schultz]That Axis History Forum Guy Again...

[General Zod]

]

Hard to say exactly. I guess shortly before my twenty-first birthday I really got to thinking about what I wanted to do and accomplish in my life and, gradually, came to see that the most important thing would be getting married and having kids. From that time I dated only women, in fact, only women whom I could see being the mother of my children. There were, of course, a few stray liaisons with men in my early twenties, but I can say without a doubt that I have only been sexually active with women since I was 23, and that have been in a monogamous marriage for the last twenty years.

On the whole, I would say it was less a matter of deciding to be straight than simply clarifying my goals in life and adjusting my habits to fit those goals.

Funny, cause I've never had any attractions to any men whatsoever, and as early as I can remember I've always found women vastly more desirable. Anecdotal evidence does work both ways, yanno.

[Stark]

Hey, he fooled around with guys then stopped! That means every homosexual could do the same thing, right? I better tell all my friends who live through bullshit on account of their sexuality - they can just quit being gay!

[Ender]

Look, my schedule is pretty busy lately - when can I expect a vote on this guy in the senate? I'll pencil it in.

[Medic]

Does free will enter into your moral calculations at all, or are we just automatons bounding around like atoms in the void? Were not Pastor Niemoller, Father Kolbe, and Dietrich Bonhoffer elevated to being heroes (instead of mere victims) because they chose their fates voluntarily?

Are there not degrees of innocence as well as of guilt? Many petty criminals were sent to concentration camps as well. Now, they were actual criminals, so they weren’t innocent, yet they were being punished wildly out of proportion to their crimes. So, in this case would you concede that these criminals were less innocent than Jews or Homosexuals?

Wait, did you just try to excuse democide / genocide by pointing out that it MUST have netted a few criminals along the way too?

Also, what, praytell, are you trying to get at with degrees of innocence? You're pulling a Bush Admistration stunt on trying to link Sadam and 911 by insinuating it in every way imaginable but falling just short of saying it. Only what you're refusing to say is: that if people make a choice, somehow, they might deserve to die for it cause these choices are unagreeable. Are they supposed to fake not being gay, or Gypsy or Communists to avoid Democide? Are you capable of self-criticism on this? I'm literally spelling out the inanity of it for you. It's already been pointed out that legal and moral comparisons aren't 1:1 much as you wish them to be.

I know a woman who

Now — if this is not an example of a conditioned response, then I don’t know what is.

You're really dense, so for the umpteenth time.

[Ghost Rider]

Look, my schedule is pretty busy lately - when can I expect a vote on this guy in the senate? I'll pencil it in.

Soon, but first he has to stop making us laugh with his complaints and *evidence*.

[Surlethe]

<snip>

Are you going to answer my question, bitch?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

<snip>

Are you going to answer my question, bitch?

No, he won't. He's a fucking asshole; that's all we need to see.

[Raesene]

Does free will enter into your moral calculations at all, or are we just automatons bounding around like atoms in the void? Were not Pastor Niemoller, Father Kolbe, and Dietrich Bonhoffer elevated to being heroes (instead of mere victims) because they chose their fates voluntarily?

Are there not degrees of innocence as well as of guilt? Many petty criminals were sent to concentration camps as well. Now, they were actual criminals, so they weren’t innocent, yet they were being punished wildly out of proportion to their crimes. So, in this case would you concede that these criminals were less innocent than Jews or Homosexuals?

we are talking not about resistance fighters/preachers, we were talking about people who were killed because of their belief or behaviour.
and I'm waiting for the list of which KZ-crimes you would call first /second degree murder or manslaughter. I don't think telling a joke about Hitler should result in being sent to a death camp, so the criminal statistics of a KZ is not really showing true crimes.

[Wyrm]

"He is homosexual because he likes man-sweat," is the likely biological basis for homosexuality: the little gay boy learning, through the smell of testosterone tickling the back of his mind, that men are the objects of his desires, and thus becomes homosexual, the same way little straight girls learn men are the objects of their desires through the same mechanism.

This would be persuasive if it could be shown to be causative, however if we can prove that it works both ways then it is merely correlative.

And I offer you an example of the reverse process taking place. I know a woman who identified strongly as straight all through high-school, enjoying virtually every form of heteroeroticism short of actual intercourse. She went off to college, drank too much at a party, was raped in her sleep, and ever afterwards has identified as a lesbian. I’ve known her for several years now and, whenever she’s with her lover she is constantly leaning over and sniffing her lover’s arm-pits (it’s really cute!) because, so she says, “It’s just like the smell of sex!” Now — if this is not an example of a conditioned response, then I don’t know what is.

Oh, how cute! More anecdotal evidence!

The mechanism I proposed was mere supposition, but at least it was a mechanism. What do you have? An anecdote! The variance on an anecdote is absymally high, you know.

I think your reverse process is nothing more than a bisexual girl swearing off men forever. As for claiming that the armpit smells "just like the smell of sex", I think she's bullshitting you. Armpit smells like armpit, and it's not very pleasant no matter who it comes from. The only thing that makes it pleasant for your friend is that it comes from your friend's lover, but I bet if you give her a blinded test, she can't tell her lover's sweat from Adam's. I also doubt that even a significant fraction of female rape victims switch teams after being raped, and I strongly suspect the "switch hitter" fraction is close to the rate of bisexuality among women.

Here's why I think her attraction to women isn't conditioned the way you think. If you read carefully the report on the pheremonic response of gay men, you'll find that, in addition to the subjective responses (which, contrary to your friend's claim, do not say that they think any particular sweat is pleasant to sniff, just that they have preferences), there was also PET scanning of the volunteers. Here's the relevant passage:

When they sniffed smells like cedar or lavender, all of the subjects' brains reacted only in the olfactory region that handles smells.

But when confronted by a chemical from testosterone, the male hormone, portions of the brains active in sexual activity were activated in straight women and in gay men, but not in straight men, the researchers found.

The response in gay men and straight women was concentrated in the hypothalamus with a maximum in the preoptic area that is active in hormonal and sensory responses necessary for sexual behavior, the researchers said.

Do you know what this means, moose-brain? An ordinary smell activates the olfactory cortex only. When the man-sweat is given to straight women and gay men, an additional, very primitive pathway is activated. Why emphesize "very primitive"? Because the primitiveness makes the pathway very hard to condition.

Let's take a less primitive pathway, a pathway connecting the visual cortex directly to the amygdala. If this pathway is ruptured, then you will suddenly believe that your house and possessions are fakes, and your own mother is an imposter. The reason why is because the accustomed emotional response to seeing your mother is completely absent when this nerve is ruptured, so your higher mind rationalizes that this must be some doppelganger that only looks like your mother. Until she speaks, because the connection between the auditory cortex and the amygdala is just fine and the mother's voice evokes the familiar emotional response.

You would think that you recognize mother as genuine on a conscious level and that conscious awareness evokes an emotional response. This pathology puts to rest that notion. The emotional response comes first, when the amygdala recognizes your mother directly, then comes the recognition of that person as your real mother. This pathology is completely immune to conditioning. You can learn to wait until your mother speaks before accusing her of being an imposter — you can learn to cope with the lack of emotional response, but the emotional response never comes to you on sight alone.

If it is hard to change your feelings based on this more recent pathway, what about an older pathway? Laughable. This pathway is DEDICATED to sniffing out man-sweat, and only active in gay men and straight women; it is completely SILENT in straight men. The power of ancient neural pathways trump conditioned responses.

Also, please note: This is a PET scanner. Ie, NOT SUBJECTIVE!

The history of supposedly “scientific” sex surveys is replete with anecdotal selection (e.g. Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis”), special pleading (e.g. “The Hite Report”), and out-and-out falsification (both Kinsey Reports). There is also pressure to make views of sexuality conform to societal norms, religious teaching, and political agendas.

Conspiracy theories: that's the rhetoric of a discredited position. And I don't like your face either. You're pretending that we don't learn from the failings of past studies.

I’m sorry — where’s the conspiracy?

Didn't you get the memo? It's the Evil Gay Comspiracy out to make all straight men poofy! You've already met Brother Snowman. I'm Not-Gay-Yet Associate Gimp-Boy Wyrm. On the dicipline rack, New Recruit!

Did I accuse Dr. Kinsey and Shere Hite of being in cahoots, or did I merely point up that, due to the subjective nature of sexuality, the bias of researchers, the reticence (or dishonesty) or respondents, and the hurdle of overcoming societal norms preventing true objectivity, it is almost impossible to be genuinely scientific in conducting such a survey.

Dishonesty and subjectivity all in the same direction? Smells like conspiracy to me.

Probably the best study to date is seriously flawed. The U of C’s Edward Laumann’s "Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors,” has been seriously questioned by Jacques Stern, at the Centre National de la Recherché Scientifique and P. Cameron in the journal “Psychological reports” 1998, vol82. In a letter,Laumann himself admitted to me that at no time did this study look at the problem of sexual dominance and wheather it contributed to orientation. (At least this study finally seems to have put to rest Kinsey’s wildly inflated 10% figure for homosexuality!)

Oh, so if this flawed study knocks down Kinsey's 10% figure, you suddenly believe that part, fuckstick? At least we now have a name where you came up with this ridiculous dominance/submissive bullshit.

and I think it can be best evaluated in what is perhaps the least repressed arena of sexuality, the homosexual leather bar.

And here's the classic "Gay guys are alienz!" position. Do you have any guarantee that the homosexual leather bar is in any way representative of homosexuals in general?

“Aliens?” How do you get that? My best friends are leather-tops, we routinely meet for drinks in leather bars, I never miss IML, I like homoeroticism! I just think there are better ways of spending one’s life.

You nevertheless think that leather-tops are in any way representitive of typical homosexual behavior. How many gays actually frequent leather bars, fucknut? Don't know? Then how do you know such a sample is representative of all gays, rather than just gays who frequent leather bars?

What about the gay guys who play Quake to pass the time instead of going to leather bars? They're obviously missing from your sample. What about the ones who go to fancy restraunts with their dates? To the movies?

Oh, by the way, "My best friends are X" is scraping the bottom of poor defenses for your arguments. We want reasons, not who your friends are.

The only reason I would recommend making observations on homosexual behavior in a leather bar is because here the veneer of respectability is completely stripped away, the pretense of men looking for relationships (as opposed to sex as such) is absent, and this rarified atmosphere brings out what the true dynamics of homosexuality are.

O RLY?! You realize that homosexuals frequenting leather bars are more likely to display behavior associated with leather-tops, don't you? Obvious selection bias. You lose, Tweedledum.

What makes you think DW or any of us aren't think about moral distinctions logically? DW, and indeed I, reject the moral distinction between mass murder of a race and mass murder of a social group on the basis that they both cause equal harm to society when the targeted groups are of equal size.

True, there is an academic difference between the two, but the two are equal using the metric we have chosen to evaluate morality. DW is asking what metric you choose to evaluate what it means for one action to be "morally worse" than another.

The equivalence you are drawing is a functional one. Without moral distinctions that take into account intention, means, and the rule of law, one very quickly ends up advocating a “means justify the ends” position.

Classic strawman of utilitarianism, matress wipe. The end does not justify the means in utilitarianism, because utilitarianism takes into account the entire end, even the harm you cause along the way using the means. If the utility account at the end of your action is negative, then the action is ethically unjustified in utilitarianism, even if the "end" is good.

Undermining the rule of law is bad when those laws create positive utility, like traffic laws promoting the smooth and swift flow of traffic. Utilitarianism can support the rule of law when the law have utility. Utilitarianism disallows laws that are of bad utility and calls for them to be abolished. Then again, a worthless or harmful law should be abolished, right?

Intention can play a part in utilitarianism. The engineer didn't intend for the bridge to fall down and kill that many people, but he is no less culpable for his poor design. On the other hand, if the engineer intended for the bridge to fall and purposefully designed it that way, it shows an inclination to cause harm that should be addressed.

You may now shut up about utilitarianism.

On the other hand, without some kind of metric that tells you the ethicality of actions, moral rules become "just so", which is not any good reason to subscribe to them. Until you tell us what your metric is, we can't see any justification behind your arbitrary views of morality.

Interesting distinction there, fucknut. It seems that self-selected groups are somewhat at fault for selecting themselves into these groups, and therefore, in some way, deserve to be fucked over.

If they have the option of selecting themselves out of the group then they are not really trapped are they? Edith Stein became a Catholic nun, yet she was killed by the Nazis for being Jewish, whereas, during the Soviet collectivizations, thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of Kulaks simply moved to the cities, became proletarians, and thus escaped persecution. If you cannot see a moral distinction between these two policies then I really have to wonder if you have any sense of fairness whatsoever.

So if you can sever yourself from a group, then killing off that group is less atrocious than killing off a group you can't sever from? What the fuck kind of morality are you parading around, shitcock?!?! See, we sane people believe that it doesn't matter what group you belong to, murdering any group of people, wholesale, is wrong!

Yes, if you happen to be a part of a severable group, and that group is being persecuted, then the smart move is to sever yourself until the persecution dies down. But that does not excuse the persecutor for their singling out a group for liquidation!

What insane asylum did you escape from to think otherwise, skullfucker?!

Also, legality does not imply ethicallity! You can do something completely legal yet ethically questionable or even ethically reprehensible..

I never said that it did. My point was that the idea of degrees of guilt and innocence are so inherent to Western moral thought that they have been incorporated into our legal system.

Okay, but I'm not seeing how Western moral thought justifies the distinction between between genocide and your democide, because it amounts to blaming the victim for being a part of a severable group. You can choose to not be a Buddhist, so if you are one during a Buddhist purge, then the atrocity (and hence, culpability to the perpetrator) is lessened because you can choose to not be a Buddhist?

You know, blaming the victim is also frowned upon in Western moral thought. Moron.

Well that’s quite a rant, but I have to wonder who you are addressing it to, because:

I have never said that Nazi Democide was in any way justified! <- Smallified! -Wyrm

That's right. You didn't. You just said it was less attrocious than genocide. Oooo, big diff! Thee hast truely pwnd me!

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

gay guys who play Quake to pass the time

So you do love me; how sweet!

[R.M. Schultz]

Sexuality is one of life’s great intangibles. “Evidence,” such as it is, is both necessarily subjective and prone to falsification.

Why?

Lots of reasons. A few might include:

• Self-reporting biases Any survey of sexuality ultimately must be based upon self-reporting and social biases are bound to skew the answers. Women, who often feel that sexuality outside the context of an emotional relationship is “cheap”, are very likely to underreport their experiences, while men, who wish to be perceived as “cocksmen” are just as likely to overstate them, or at least over-state the frequency of coition to enhance their apparent virility. (This is why the statistics on the number of partners never agree between the sexes.) Similarly, adulterers are less likely to give a full account of their liaisons no matter what kinds of guarantees of confidentiality are given. Recently, homosexual men have become prone to insisting that they are in “stable, long term relationships,” without adding the caveat that these are “open” relationships replete with lots of side-action. There is also the until recently never discussed phenomenon of “lesbian bed death” wherein an estimated three-quarters of lesbian couples simply cease having carnal relations after the first two years of cohabitation (and who wants to admit to that!).

• Subjectivity and innate desire Have you ever heard someone say that they didn’t like sex? There are a few people out there who will admit it, and most of them have a pretty good reason (like pain during intercourse, a history of abuse, or fear of pregnancy), but usually people who don’t like it say something like “it’s over-rated.” Everybody has to breathe constantly, hydrate regularly, and eat every day, but sex is both biologically necessary to the race and optional for the individual. In my experience (the only survey that I can really be sure of) I find that sexual desire sorts itself out into three basic groups. I call this the 3/5ths rule and it works like this:

1/5 of women like sex for what it is! They want sex, seek it out, and are quite capable of enjoying it without any emotional attachments. They are unapologetically orgasmic and frequently bisexual.
3/5 of women like sex within the context of a relationship. What they are seeking, primarily, is the the intimacy and closeness that accompanies sex, not sex for its own sake. Many of these women are quite content with their sex lives, as orgasmic as women who like sex (though only when there is an emotional content), and quite capable sex partners — but the sex itself is not the primary motivation!
1/5 of women just don’t like sex and aren’t orgasmic at all. Sex baffles them and they will often say that it is “something men have to do.”

With men the situation is somewhat different because only a very small fraction (perhaps 2%) are genuinely not orgasmic, yet they manage to sort themselves out into the same groups:

1/5 of men like sex and (more importantly) are good at it! This means they can get just about all the sex they want, see sex not only as a physical pleasure but also as an ego aggrandizement, and revel in the power dynamic of seduction and submission.
2/5 of men like sex but are not so good at it. They doubt their ability to please their partner, choke up in new situations, have problems with pre-mature ejaculation and maintaining erections. Thus — they seek to lower the tension level in the bedroom by trading love for sex, by entering into long-term relationships where they can feel comfortable and accepted, and through earning a woman’s esteem through non-sexual means so that they can claim an indulgence for their mediocre sexual performance. [Note if you will, how this perfectly dove-tails with what the bulk of women want!]
1/5 of men are so insecure in their sexuality that they pretty much drop out of the game. They indulge in other pleasures (become fat, or drunk, or couch potatoes), they throw themselves into their careers, or simply retreat into the anti-social life of the loner (and become compulsive masturbators). I’m sure you don’t have to think hard to come up with a list of a dozen men that you would consider “unmarriageable” — these are the men I’m talking about.

Now — given that sex means something different to all of these groups, how is the “sexpert” to come up with a reliable quantitative analysis of them? Do you think any more than a small minority of women is actually going to confess to being non-orgasmic? Do you think that ANY man is going to say sex scares him so much that he would undoubtedly be impotent if he actually had an opportunity to fuck? How many women mistake the intimacy that accompanies sex for actual carnality and would, in perfect innocence, mis-report their experiences?

• Political Influence Does it not serve the political agenda of homosexuals to portray their lifestyle as innate? Would a Christian fundamentalist Republican ever actually admit to enjoying lesbian porn (and you know they do)? Would a Bourgeois Liberal ever admit that passive sodomy is a more conducive vector for the transmission of AIDS than heterosexual congress? NEVER! Politics colors not only how one expresses sexuality, but also what one thinks is correct and thus what one will admit to. Remember — it was lesbian researchers who uncovered Lesbian Bed-Death (because lesbians would never admit such a thing to straight researchers) and then they were roundly criticized and condemned within the lesbian community for letting the dirty secret out. Everyone has an agenda about sex and that is going to keep them from telling a researcher the whole truth.

• Influence of the Times When Kraft-Ebbing did his survey of sexual pathology, Austrian authorities would not allow him to publish the sections on anal sex. When a law banning homosexuality was brought before Queen Victoria, she refused to sign it unless it specified that the law applied only to men, because women would never do such things! When oral sex was first being discussed in the media in the early 1970’s, it was no accident that Shere Hite’s report concluding that cunnillingus was necessary for female satisfaction became a best seller. The times themselves influence what sort of sexual questions are asked just as much as they influence the kids of answers given.

• Ultimate Subjectivity In researching things like smell or taste, scientists can accurately gage sensations (salty, acrid, etc.), measure neurological responses, and very nearly objectively formulate a theory of taste or smell with universal application. Vinegar, for instance, has a measurable acidity and that’s going to cause a measurable reaction upon the taste buds, but even though a blow-job has a measurable sensation upon the frennum, who is performing the act enters into whether or not it is ultimately enjoyable. When a sexpert asks a respondent, “Were you excited?” the level of arousal can only be gaged by the respondent against his own experience. I’m sure if you could actually know how long different men had been able to sustain an erection and engage in coition, the times would range from minutes to hours — and does this not evince a vastly different maximal arousal? Ask men to describe an orgasm and it will be about the same from man to man, but ask women and the metaphors vary from “melting” to “explosion.” (Similarly, virtually all men respond to a standard technique of felation, whereas what women consider good cunniligual technique varies wildly.)

I hope that this list, extensive though not comprehensive, gives you some inkling as to why it has proven almost impossible for scientists, however well intentioned, to generate a truly objective picture of sexuality.

[R.M. Schultz]

To all my friends on Stardestroyer:

Since joining your forum, some twenty-five members have taken the time and trouble to answer my posts. I regret to admit that I have not been able to answer them all. Please keep in mind that I am only one person, with a limited amount of time to spend “goofing off” on the internet, and be assured that I fully intend to answer you all. I have found this discussion quite stimulating and hope that you find it interesting as well. Thank you again for your patience.

[R.M. Schultz]

... I've never had any attractions to any men whatsoever, and as early as I can remember I've always found women vastly more desirable. Anecdotal evidence does work both ways, yanno. :roll:

Does it? I think what this shows is that you are not truly dominant sexually.

If you are asking “do I find men attractive?” then you are seeing the problem passively.

If you are asking “can I use this person for my sexual purpose?” then you are a Top.

See — even your sexual experience fits the Single Field Theory!

[General Zod]

... I've never had any attractions to any men whatsoever, and as early as I can remember I've always found women vastly more desirable. Anecdotal evidence does work both ways, yanno.

Does it? I think what this shows is that you are not truly dominant sexually.

If you are asking “do I find men attractive?” then you are seeing the problem passively.

If you are asking “can I use this person for my sexual purpose?” then you are a Top.

See — even your sexual experience fits the Single Field Theory!

What the fuck does sexual dominance have to do with orientation, fuckwit?

[Keevan_Colton]

... I've never had any attractions to any men whatsoever, and as early as I can remember I've always found women vastly more desirable. Anecdotal evidence does work both ways, yanno.

Does it? I think what this shows is that you are not truly dominant sexually.

If you are asking “do I find men attractive?” then you are seeing the problem passively.

If you are asking “can I use this person for my sexual purpose?” then you are a Top.

See — even your sexual experience fits the Single Field Theory!

What the fuck does sexual dominance have to do with orientation, fuckwit?

Maybe he's afraid all the gays are looking to rape him?

[Darth Wong]

I like the way RM Schultz thinks that establishing the limitations of sociology and psychology somehow magically translates to credibility for his own pet theory.

Schultz, you can rant all day and at great length about how the evidence for prevailing psychology and sociology theories is not totally conclusive, but it's still far more evidence than you have presented. Ergo, those theories are far more likely to be true than yours. What part of this are you too dense to get?

[Ghost Rider]

Aside from his last blurb wherein one wonders if he grasps that shoehorning a square peg into a round hole does not make the peg round, his other post of answering Surlethe was one of the funnier and more inane bits.

Literally he's using why he needs to use subjective proof, because according to him there is no objective anything, and proceeds to demonstrate this from evidence from who knows where.

He reminds me of people who claim to have discovered cold fusion or some such pointless dreaming.

[Kuja]

1/5 of men like sex and (more importantly) are good at it! This means they can get just about all the sex they want, see sex not only as a physical pleasure but also as an ego aggrandizement, and revel in the power dynamic of seduction and submission.
2/5 of men like sex but are not so good at it. They doubt their ability to please their partner, choke up in new situations, have problems with pre-mature ejaculation and maintaining erections. Thus — they seek to lower the tension level in the bedroom by trading love for sex, by entering into long-term relationships where they can feel comfortable and accepted, and through earning a woman’s esteem through non-sexual means so that they can claim an indulgence for their mediocre sexual performance. [Note if you will, how this perfectly dove-tails with what the bulk of women want!]
1/5 of men are so insecure in their sexuality that they pretty much drop out of the game. They indulge in other pleasures (become fat, or drunk, or couch potatoes), they throw themselves into their careers, or simply retreat into the anti-social life of the loner (and become compulsive masturbators). I’m sure you don’t have to think hard to come up with a list of a dozen men that you would consider “unmarriageable” — these are the men I’m talking about.

Does anyone else notice the obvious problem here? *snickers*

[Darth Wong]

1/5 of men like sex and (more importantly) are good at it! This means they can get just about all the sex they want, see sex not only as a physical pleasure but also as an ego aggrandizement, and revel in the power dynamic of seduction and submission.
2/5 of men like sex but are not so good at it. They doubt their ability to please their partner, choke up in new situations, have problems with pre-mature ejaculation and maintaining erections. Thus — they seek to lower the tension level in the bedroom by trading love for sex, by entering into long-term relationships where they can feel comfortable and accepted, and through earning a woman’s esteem through non-sexual means so that they can claim an indulgence for their mediocre sexual performance. [Note if you will, how this perfectly dove-tails with what the bulk of women want!]
1/5 of men are so insecure in their sexuality that they pretty much drop out of the game. They indulge in other pleasures (become fat, or drunk, or couch potatoes), they throw themselves into their careers, or simply retreat into the anti-social life of the loner (and become compulsive masturbators). I’m sure you don’t have to think hard to come up with a list of a dozen men that you would consider “unmarriageable” — these are the men I’m talking about.

Does anyone else notice the obvious problem here? *snickers*

Are you talking about his bad math, or the fact that he spends all his time imagining what's going through the minds of other men when they're having sex?

His bizarre ruminations about the reasons "2/5 of men" seek relationships in order to compensate for their weak sexual skills speak volumes about his own neuroses, not to mention his poor logic skills. Gee, it couldn't be that men simply crave affection like everyone else, could it? Hell, even many species of animals crave affection. Oh no, men "seek to lower the tension level in the bedroom by trading love for sex, by entering into long-term relationships." This guy is a classic case of sexual and relationship dysfunction, and he's projecting his own mental problems on to the rest of mankind.

[Kuja]

I was referring to the 1/5 + 1/5 + 2/5 = 4/5. I figure the folks already involved can rip his text to shreds without my assistance.

[Stark]

Are you talking about his bad math, or the fact that he spends all his time imagining what's going through the minds of other men when they're having sex?

That was gold. I'm damn good in bed... so that means I'm immediately some manipulative, domineering person? I'm not just someone who enjoys sex and bothered to pay attention? Call me crazy, but the easy availability of sex (which is true for most people) has hardly turned me away from longterm relationships.

You know what? I'm good in bed and INSECURE. I shy away from relationships because I don't think I can make it work. ZOMG, my anecdotes defeat his anecdotes!

[mr friendly guy]

I was referring to the 1/5 + 1/5 + 2/5 = 4/5. I figure the folks already involved can rip his text to shreds without my assistance.

I was wondering where the other 1/5 of men went. Maybe they died or became Catholic priests or something so they don't count.

[The Spartan]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

* 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
* 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters

* 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
* 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
* 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

Now, you might have a case that it's conditioning if all we had were the hormonal response study. But, couple that with an identical twin being 2.4 to 3 times as likely to be homosexual if the other is as non-identical twins and 4.7 to 8 times as likely compared to adoptive siblings...

Face it, the primary source is genetic.

[R.M. Schultz]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Since I'm a silly, forgetful, little bastard, I forgot about the twin studies regarding homosexuality ....

Are these studies of twins raised separately? If not, then both the genetic material AND the environment are identical, and so we're back to the nature/nurture debate.

I think in fact it was the 'twins raised separately' thing. As per always, you are fucking wrong. Even if it's not, read this.

Why are you equating 'gay because of nurture' with 'less of an atrocity to torture and mass-murder all gay people'? You are a sick lowlife deserving nothing but contempt.

See you in Hell.