Interesting theory about homosexuality

[minsue]

Ah, but there are very reasonable and scientific explanation for moss and rainbows.



Now, this might be inviting a flaming, but going back to lesbians and their drive to be parents, compared with that of gay men. I do believe that the urge to reproduce is far stronger in women. Men do feel a nurting and caring drive towards offspring, off course they do, but they don't have the same drive as women to actually reproduce.

That backs up the theories put forth above.

Lou

I've always thought the theory that women have an urge to reproduce, as opposed to men having an urge to fuck, as being bullshit. Then again, it prolly has a lot to do with the fact that I have no urge to reproduce.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Surely that depends on the individual, Lou!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I've been with many guys who have been more interested in having babies than I am.

 

[Guest]

I've always thought the theory that women have an urge to reproduce, as opposed to men having an urge to fuck, as being bullshit. Then again, it prolly has a lot to do with the fact that I have no urge to reproduce.

Well, maybe so.

I was generalising, and I know I myself somewhat go against what I said.

I have a very high sex drive, and love to fuck, I think almost as much as the average man does (maybe even more!), but, I also had a very strong urge to reproduce. I don't now, though, haven't for a while. That was sated by having two kids.

 

[tolyk]

Surely that depends on the individual, Lou!

It does completely depend on the individual. There are many women who don't want to have kids, and many men that do. The urge to reproduce is most likely present in every single one of us, just not as strong in some.

I agree with Minsue about that theory is bullshit

 

[Svenskaflicka]

My drive to reproduce is sated by watching other people with their kids.

Not to mention the interesting article I read the other day, about a woman who burst while giving birth, so that there was a big hole in the wall between her vagina and her anus. When she took a dump, everything came out of the wrong opening, so to speak...

Very inspiring.

Scuse me while I go and look at adoption sites...

 

[Guest]

Well, I know, and have heard of even more, women who have high sex drives, then have kids. After that it somewhat diminishes, to quite a large degree in some respects.

Ok, I may be talking bollocks, but it's good to discuss this kind of thing!

Of course, I'm saying all of this on a porn site, where every single one of us is as horny as hell.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I've always thought the theory that women have an urge to reproduce, as opposed to men having an urge to fuck, as being bullshit. Then again, it prolly has a lot to do with the fact that I have no urge to reproduce.

My belief here, is that men have a natural urge to copulate. Yes it's pretty neanderthal to anyone who doesn't like it, but basically, tough, that's how it is.

The male of the species has the urge to copulate. He leaves his seed and moves on to find the next female. Why else are so many men, "single minded jackasses" to use many quotes.

The female of the species on the other hand, when she's young, also has the urge to copulate. She however also wants to couple up, to give her offspring all the natural protection she can, with a larger, stronger male by her side.

Later on, when she's done with reproducing and may or may not still be nurturing, her drive to copulate falls off. As far as nature is concerned, her job is done. She's played her part in the furtherment of the race.

The male on the other hand can still play his part, spreading his seed, so, in the main, that's what he tries to do.

As for individuals having differences in all these urges, that's the way the money spins sometimes. here are exceptions to all rules, but for the general rule, see above.

 

[minsue]

My belief here, is that men have a natural urge to copulate. Yes it's pretty neanderthal to anyone who doesn't like it, but basically, tough, that's how it is.

The male of the species has the urge to copulate. He leaves his seed and moves on to find the next female. Why else are so many men, "single minded jackasses" to use many quotes.

The female of the species on the other hand, when she's young, also has the urge to copulate. She however also wants to couple up, to give her offspring all the natural protection she can, with a larger, stronger male by her side.

Later on, when she's done with reproducing and may or may not still be nurturing, her drive to copulate falls off. As far as nature is concerned, her job is done. She's played her part in the furtherment of the race.

The male on the other hand can still play his part, spreading his seed, so, in the main, that's what he tries to do.

As for individuals having differences in all these urges, that's the way the money spins sometimes. here are exceptions to all rules, but for the general rule, see above.

If that's so, Lew, then why do they always say a man hits his sexual peak in his late teens and a woman in her mid-thirties?

And who are 'they'? (don't mind me, really do need that nap....)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Clinically speaking, Psychology has found no strong correlation between these sorts of gender-issues. That is to say, it seems to be more of a rumor than a fact.

 

[minsue]

Clinically speaking, Psychology has found no strong correlation between these sorts of gender-issues. That is to say, it seems to be more of a rumor than a fact.

It's good to be able to agree with you on something.

 

[English Lady]

As to the urge to reproduce -surely both sexes have it but in a different way. maybe it is more noticible in females (or has been, or is assumed to be by the media) and men hide it it with macho talk more? But then that in itself is another generalisation

 

[lewdandlicentious]

If that's so, Lew, then why do they always say a man hits his sexual peak in his late teens and a woman in her mid-thirties?

And who are 'they'? (don't mind me, really do need that nap....)

That's the question Min, who the hell are "they"??

I've gone on record here as saying: "Who the hell are they......?"

It's all opinion in my view. People's opinions, including each of ours, are shaded by our own experiences and emotions.

The thing also is, if those stats are true, that's the average sexual peak. I take that to be physically, not emotionally.

Although in their late teens they could probably do it more times a night, into their thirties and older, although the quantity would have diminished, the quality would almost certainly have improved.

The same for women, but at a later age, recovery rates for women are better.

 

[Guest]

Clinically speaking, Psychology has found no strong correlation between these sorts of gender-issues. That is to say, it seems to be more of a rumor than a fact.

Ok, taking psychology out of it (which I know might be almost impossible to comprehend ), but can hormones not play a part?

I know it's all linked, as to what drives things within us, from deep within the brain, but I think there's a lot more than pure psychology to be taken into consideration.

Besides which, the facts which present themselves to me tell me otherwise.

Edited to add: As Lew said, above, we all have different experiences and so on, so we reach different conclusions. It is all opinion, after all.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
People's opinions, including each of ours, are shaded by our own experiences and emotions..

But (and this is traditionally unpopular a stance, here) there are better and worse qualifying experience and emotions don't necessarily play a part.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Clinically speaking, Psychology has found no strong correlation between these sorts of gender-issues. That is to say, it seems to be more of a rumor than a fact.

But again, as with all things, it's all opinion.

OK, their opinions probably have some statistical backup, but as we all know, stats can be provided to show anything you like.

Coming at any set of stats from any given angle, you can find information to back your own theories. There are none so blind, as those that don't want to see. Those are usually the ring leaders. Sorry, we call them politicians now, don't we??

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
But again, as with all things, it's all opinion.

OK, their opinions probably have some statistical backup, but as we all know, stats can be provided to show anything you like.

Nine people are polled on their preference for Pepsi or Coke with the options of (1) Pepsi, (2) Coke, (3) No preference. Six prefer Coke, Two prefer Pepsi and One person has no preference...

...use those statistics to show that Pepsi is preferred over Coke.

It is an unfortunate thing that people believe statistics can be used to prove anything or that they're just extensions of fraud. They're not. They're numbers. Interpretations on those numbers are not infinite, nor are all statistics able to both affirm and deny a given proposition.

Were that true, I'd expect everyone here to admit that Bush has the vast majority of Democrats supporting his regime... because, as we know, statistics that say otherwise are just interpretive falsehoods.

Coming at any set of stats from any given angle, you can find information to back your own theories. There are none so blind, as those that don't want to see. Those are usually the ring leaders. Sorry, we call them politicians now, don't we??

Coming from a strongly political family, a tradition of holding office and using well-collected statistical information both professionally and personally... I'd say this is claptrap and erroneous.

We can say that we don't believe the sample was taken correctly or that the accounting was wrong (election time can attest to that), but if we're basing opinion on reasoned analysis and reasoned analysis on quality information and quality information on statistics whose method can be trusted (blind studies, double-blind studies, large samples, expert researchers, etc.)... then, no, "its your opinion" doesn't really hold water.

 

[English Lady]

I don't believe it's as black and white as that. Statistics can be used in a way that can falsely show things.

small amounts of people being asked, only a certain type of person being asked, leading questions being asked....

Statistics are onlyuseful to a certain extent I think...and need backingupwith other information

 

[Guest]

I don't believe it's as black and white as that. Statistics can be used in a way that can falsely show things.

small amounts of people being asked, only a certain type of person being asked, leading questions being asked....

Statistics are onlyuseful to a certain extent I think...and need backingupwith other information

Yep! What EL said.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Nine people are polled on their preference for Pepsi or Coke with the options of (1) Pepsi, (2) Coke, (3) No preference. Six prefer Coke, Two prefer Pepsi and One person has no preference...

...use those statistics to show that Pepsi is preferred over Coke.

It is an unfortunate thing that people believe statistics can be used to prove anything or that they're just extensions of fraud. They're not. They're numbers. Interpretations on those numbers are not infinite, nor are all statistics able to both affirm and deny a given proposition.

Were that true, I'd expect everyone here to admit that Bush has the vast majority of Democrats supporting his regime... because, as we know, statistics that say otherwise are just interpretive falsehoods.



Coming from a strongly political family, a tradition of holding office and using well-collected statistical information both professionally and personally... I'd say this is claptrap and erroneous.

We can say that we don't believe the sample was taken correctly or that the accounting was wrong (election time can attest to that), but if we're basing opinion on reasoned analysis and reasoned analysis on quality information and quality information on statistics whose method can be trusted (blind studies, double-blind studies, large samples, expert researchers, etc.)... then, no, "its your opinion" doesn't really hold water.

Yep, and you're perfectly well entitled to that opinion.

But I don't agree.

We all know Coke is more popular that Pepsi, so I'd say it wouldn't need a survey to work that one out.

As for everything else, again, it's all opinion. Just because psychobabblers SAY somethings so, don't mean it necessarily is.

You believe in god. You've said so before. I don't.

I believe you cannot PROVE he exists. You would probably agree. BUT, you'd still believe in him.

It's environmentally, situationally, hormonally, and any other ally you can think of, directed emotion.

Hence, opinion.

 

[carsonshepherd]

There is only one compelling reason for a man to be a homosexual.

He likes cock.

Thank you and good night.

 

[Guest]

I just wanna throw in that I'm really enjoying this thread. Earl, you said "Discuss" and we have, largely thanks to Lew, I think.

God, he's so sexy when he's like this...

(When is he not sexy? I hear myself ask.)

Anyway! *ahem*

Back to the topic...

 

[Evil Alpaca]

I don't believe it's as black and white as that. Statistics can be used in a way that can falsely show things.

small amounts of people being asked, only a certain type of person being asked, leading questions being asked....

Statistics are onlyuseful to a certain extent I think...and need backingupwith other information

Statistics are useful for examining trends and establishing probabilities, but not for establishing truth, if such a thing is even possible.

While there is no doubt in my mind that sexual orientation is a biological construct (regardless of how you define orientation), I've heard this kind of theory where homosexuality is some kind evolutionary population check, but my understanding of evolution doesn't allow me to buy into it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
Yep, and you're perfectly well entitled to that opinion.

But I don't agree.

We all know Coke is more popular that Pepsi, so I'd say it wouldn't need a survey to work that one out.

As for everything else, again, it's all opinion. Just because psychobabblers SAY somethings so, don't mean it necessarily is.

You believe in god. You've said so before. I don't.

I believe you cannot PROVE he exists. You would probably agree. BUT, you'd still believe in him.

It's environmentally, situationally, hormonally, and any other ally you can think of, directed emotion.

Hence, opinion.

Theism has no bearing on this conversation.

You said that all statistics can be used to affirm or deny a given proposition. I presented the situation. Please show me how you can prove otherwise using the statistics given.

It's not "all opinion". Statistics gained from a study of placebos are not "opinion on placebos". The statistics taken from the success of the polio vaccine were not "a matter of opinion". The statistics measured out from "people who suffered errors or mishandling of their votes" in the last Presidential election weren't "opinion".

How, as an example, is the national census' statistics for racial percentages "all a matter of opinion"?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

I just wanna throw in that I'm really enjoying this thread. Earl, you said "Discuss" and we have, largely thanks to Lew, I think.

God, he's so sexy when he's like this...

(When is he not sexy? I hear myself ask.)

Anyway! *ahem*

Back to the topic...

Someone else call her a slut for a change?????