Are we talking about Richard M. Nixon or Cynthia Nixon? Or both?
A new book says Dick Nixon was once seen clutching the hand of Presidential Buddy Bebe Rebozo for a minute. Proof!
As for actress Cynthia Nixon, formerly of Sex and the City, she is in the dog house for saying she wasn't born a lesbian, she chose to be one. This is "controversial," even insensitive, since everybody knows that the behavior of all minority groups is controlled wholly by their genes; nobody should be allowed to doubt genetic determinism like Nixon is doing, at least not in public. Think of the children! Is she some sort of hater? (Personally, I pointed out to my wife back in the late 1990s that Nixon and/or the character she played on that show was an obvious angry repressed lesbian, but Nixon didn't seem to notice that herself until several years later.)
Frank Bruni in the NYT punditizes "Genetic or Not, Gay Won't Go Away." Of course, it never seems to dawn on Bruni and most other commentators that there might be significant statistical differences between gay males and lesbians, as I pointed out 18 years ago in Why Lesbians Aren't Gay, one of which is that gay men tend to be more enthusiastic about the born-that-way theory than are lesbians. You just aren't supposed to notice stuff. Noticing things is the cause of all the trouble in the world.
Seriously, what has changed over the last 18 years? The big difference I've noticed is that in the 1990s male homosexuals, qua homosexuals, tended to be more apolitical, with more humor, art, and fashion to occupy themselves, while lesbians tended to be the Shock Workers of the long march through the institutions, the truest true believers in the social conditioning theories dominant in 1990s academia.
Since then, gay men have become more politicized. Back in 1994, few cared about Gay Marriage, but it's one of those issues that can easily be turned into a test of whether or not "You like me! You really like me!" Politicization over Gay Marriage meant that gays' traditional snarky comments about lesbians were bad for the coalition, so the concept that lesbians aren't gay has become much more politically unpopular over the years.
Seriously, what has changed over the last 18 years? The big difference I've noticed is that in the 1990s male homosexuals, qua homosexuals, tended to be more apolitical, with more humor, art, and fashion to occupy themselves, while lesbians tended to be the Shock Workers of the long march through the institutions, the truest true believers in the social conditioning theories dominant in 1990s academia.
Since then, gay men have become more politicized. Back in 1994, few cared about Gay Marriage, but it's one of those issues that can easily be turned into a test of whether or not "You like me! You really like me!" Politicization over Gay Marriage meant that gays' traditional snarky comments about lesbians were bad for the coalition, so the concept that lesbians aren't gay has become much more politically unpopular over the years.
Posts
167 comments:
This is controversial since everybody knows that the behavior of all minority groups is controlled wholly by their genes, and nobody should be allowed to doubt genetic determinism, at least not in public.
Oh dear! You mean African American IQ and the achievement gap are controlled by genes.
Richard Nixon?
Please find something a little more relevant to talk about.
Cynthia Nixon? Even less relevant even to your own interests in HBD etc.
Everyone's heard this one probably:
What does a lesbian bring to a second date?
- a U Haul
What does a gay bring to a second date?
- What second date?
Bruni:
"One landmark study looked at gay men’s brothers and found that 52 percent of identical twin brothers were also gay..."
At least Bruni could keep up with the research a bit better. He's referring to an old study, one replaced with a larger, more recent sample which comes from the Australian twin registry. According to J. Michael Bailey, the MZ concordance figures for homosexuality are more like 20 percent, a bit higher perhaps, but certainly nowhere near the 52% Bruni states.
C. Nixon's become the Bill Cosby of the gay world.
I am also not supposed to notice how NOT well-read this gay guy is on homosexuality?
He says,
"Other research has posited or identified common anatomical and chromosomal traits among gay men or lesbians...."
By "anatomical" I suppose he means the studies that say the digit ratios for gays and straights are different (for some) and the hair whorls of gay and straight men are different (for some) but what the hell does he mean by "chromosomal traits"?
I've never read there's any evidence of gay "chromosomal traits" .
Geeez.
I still don't understand how sexual orientation can possibly be a choice. There are certain visual/auditory/tactile/psychological/ect stimuli that make a person perk up, cause blood to rush to a certain region of that person's body and make that region extra sensitive, to explain arousal in crude, simple terms. How could Cynthia Nixon, for example, get tickly between her legs at the sight of a broad muscular chest and the sound of a deep voice, and then decide that she'll react that way to breasts instead? Perhaps she couldn't admit it to herself before. Or maybe some complication from menopause caused a radical change in hormones which caused the switch in response to various stimuli. But if people could control what arouses them, would anyone ever suffer from unrequited love? Wouldn't people just decide that they'll be in love/get aroused by that other person who feels that way about them instead? Also, wouldn't pedophiles just decide to lust after adults instead if it were possible, knowing the magnitude of the punishment that they risk if they act on their current desire and being faced with a life devoid of sexual gratification if they don't. Wouldn't those lonely, frustrated men who sometimes stop by this blog just switch their radar to obese or old women, if sexual attraction were a choice?
I've known quite a few women who are bi-sexual (or at least play at being one for a while until they get married), but truly bi-sexual men seem rare. I've known lesbians who have ended up marrying men and having families. I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children.
Dick Nixon was once seen clutching the hand of Presidential Buddy Bebe Rebozo
If you know a better way to exchange long strands of proteins, I'd like to hear it!
"Genetic or Not, Gay Won't Go Away."
IF Gay tendencies are largely(but not necessarily totally) genetic then Gay will be greatly reduced. We are fast approaching the age of reprogenetics(pre-natal eugenics) brought upon by cheap and safe prenatal dna testing(EVERY pregnancy will have this done) and embryo screening. Gene Therapy may eventually be a possibility too.
Screening out for homosexuality won't be possible this decade. Despite that though, homosexuals won't have time to change people's "hearts and minds" because screening out for homosexuality will not be about hating gays but having babies who make families that look normal on a family tree. Liberals who are consistently pro-choice won't be able to stop it here and they have no shot of stopping it in China, India, Middle East, Africa, etc.
There are two ironies. 1) Religious people will be the ones who resist these technologies(and really the only ones who have a coherent reason to do so... but gene therapy's use will probably be fine) 2) homosexuals will have greatly helped to build the legal and moral philosophical foundations for the new reprogenic society
My favorite sentence from CS Lewis's anti-eugenic tract "The Abolition of Man" is this:
"Man's conquest of Nature turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Nature's conquest of Man. "
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition3.htm
In our reprogenetic age ironically:
"Homosexuals(and Liberals)'s conquest of Religion(and Nature) turns out, in the moment of its consummation, to be Religion(and Nature)'s conquest of Homosexuals(and Liberals)."
"If you know a better way to exchange long strands of proteins, I'd like to hear it!"
!
First, can anyone explain the evolutionary reason for Gayness? I'm trying to think how man-on-man sex equals "Survival of the Fittest"
Second, there are a lot of straight women who don't enjoy male-on-female sex. So, why not just try Female-on-female sex? Or maybe you're a female with some bad experiences with men, so why not give that nice, rich, lesbian tennis star, a try?
So for the more attractive, lipstick lesbians, it may be a choice.
"How could Cynthia Nixon, for example, get tickly between her legs at the sight of a broad muscular chest and the sound of a deep voice, and then decide that she'll react that way to breasts instead? Perhaps she couldn't admit it to herself before."
Agreed, unless she has two circuits that can be tripped, but I don't buy the notion of bisexuality either.
However, think of how some men, prisoners, say, or boys in a boarding school, will resort to any warm body for sex, then leave prison or boarding school and return to heterosexuality. It sounds gross, but it's "a warm hole" and it will do for them, I guess.
I think someone like Nixon is either gay and spent years trying to be sexually attracted to her husband and men in general without success, or she's a hetero seeking emotional sustenance wherever she can get it, and being an "artist" she may think it's really cool and avant garde to be lesbian/bi. After all, that subgroup is always seeking notoriety in one way or another.
I think those people who engage in bisexual behavior probably just learn to enjoy the sexual stimulation offered them by either sex w/out actually being physically aroused by the physical essence of both sexes.
But what do I know? It makes me want to vomit to think of sex with another woman. Breasts? Vaginas?
Yuck.
"First, can anyone explain the evolutionary reason for Gayness?"
No one's been able to because in all likelihood it isn't the result of natural selection/evolution, but the result of something in the fetal or neonatal/early childhood environment acting upon the fetus or the young child.
No Name,
Homosexuality might be nature's way of providing social animals with extra adults to help out with various tasks without them creating extra mouths to feed. Some say that human females become infertile relatively young for that very purpose. However, I suspect that homosexuality is, simply, a common disorder.
Straight females who don't enjoy the male on female sex are either: A. Not straight.
B. Have psychological or medical issues or
C. Would enjoy male on female sex plenty if the male in question were more closely aligned to their tastes.
I'm sure there are many women out there who would gladly do anything, including sexual acts that don't gratify them, for a large sum of money. Men have been known to go that rout too. But is gay for pay really gay? People have eaten live bugs for money. It doesn't make them oriented towards eating bugs.
Bad experience with the opposite gender can, indeed. make further relations with that gender psychologically difficult. However, how can a traumatic experience with the opposite gender lead to one being aroused by random objects towards which one is not oriented. Does a guy who's been humiliated by women in bed, and who lost everything in an unfair divorce settlement think, "Hey! I think a penis in my mouth would really make me feel much better! Why not give it a try?"
Richard Nixon?
Please find something a little more relevant to talk about.
Seriously? Nixon was a fascinating guy. His personal failings are obvious but he was damn smart and had the balls of a riverboat gambler (in retrospect, of course, he should have burned those tapes).
What's more his policies are still relevant today to all sorts of things. The EPA, affirmative action, leaving the gold standard and an all-volunteer military all began with Nixon. And in a way, he was our first Hispanic president. His administration coined the term (prior to that, Mexicans, PRs, Cubans weren't categorized in a discrete Census category).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/essays/june97/rodriguez_6-18.html
Olive Stone's rather sympathetic biopic portrays him as asexual, even-evenhandedly turning down both a pretty party favor and his own wife alike. Stone also asserts (and he's probably not far from the truth) that the men who killed Kennedy had wised up by the 1970s and removed Nixon nonviolently by maneuvering him into destroying himself. I suppose that's progress.
"Cynthia Nixon? Even less relevant even to your own interests in HBD etc."
However it is typical of vintage iSteve. He's actually demonstrating an uncommon amount of tact in this post. Steve probably wrote the one about that Goiter/Goiler? guy but did he write this one?
As for real women, they don't get physically or obviously aroused until they are close to the point of physical intimacy. It's an advantage that generally keeps us from being exploited by a guy because he looks sexy. Unless a guy has a deep resonant voice or is skilled at flirting, looks alone don't get women's sexual interest. This is why that show from the Brit comedy "Black Books" featuring an odious DJ whose voice nevertheless drives the female lead into a sexual frenzy is so funny.
This eighteen years-ago perspective may have a point, but the Camille Paglia collections I keep by the bedside were already lamenting in the early 90s the Philistinism of the gay culture then.
The gay guys apparently were no longer interested in Fassbinder or Visconti, or the cults of Hollywood and opera. For that matter, in her view, the 70s were already laying waste that cultural capital through sheer hedonism, of the sort she plainly admits was causally responsible for AIDS.
Did lesbians dream up gay marriage? Doubtless they practice monogamy much more frequently, as witness the infamous U-haul joke already cited.
Yet urban lesbian coteries are also notorious for games of musical beds, an incestuous in-group roundelay. And, from what I read, most of the people who qualify as Queer Theorists or their fellow-travelers, are fairly open (both male and female) in their acknowledgment that Gay Marriage is only a front-- that their preferred longterm goal is to reinvent "family" and "coupling" for society across the board. In short, a Gramsci Project of legally dissolving the nuclear family as we know it, as well as (they hope) convincing swathes of heterosexuals to mimic them in polyamorous/communal arrangements. That kind of social constructivism, of the humorless radical lesbian-utopian variety, shows signs of remaining alive.
It may have little real power to change human behavior, but it can be a potent front in the endless legal warfare for more "rights".
What are the chances that Barry Obama is bisexual?
Steve,
A Billion Wicked Thoughts (a pretty good read and worth picking up just for its premise -- and it has Pinker's endorsement) explores the whole gay vs. lesbian dichotomy in a curiously revealing fashion. It goes into great detail about the specifics of gay male desire - how their interests in body parts closely matches that of straight males and of course is very different from female desire which is very broad and non-visual. Interestingly, they do not mention lesbian desire at all, presumably because of the apparent risk of inviting their political wrath.
It's also quite interesting that we don't really know what desire or gay desire is. We assume it means being interested in the opposite sex, or your own, but how do you end up with it? How do our genes or brains guide us to breasts or chests or tall competent men? Evolutionary psychology only gives you the "why" story. But how?
Stone also asserts (and he's probably not far from the truth) that the men who killed Kennedy had wised up by the 1970s and removed Nixon nonviolently by maneuvering him into destroying himself.
Nixon was preparing the Federal Home Loan Bank Board to change the traditional role of American savings and loan associations. They were to change from community-centered, mutually-owned deposit and savings associations to regular commercial banks that have money creation powers. The S&L system was designed to collect local savings in order to build local housing. Ownership of the S&L was indicated by the existence of the savings account. With the Nixon Plan, they would be able to issue equity shares and be listed on the stock exchanges just like regular commercial downtown banks. They would, for the first time, have accounts for both checking and savings. The converted savings and loan associations would have full banking powers to make loans and investments, providing a first full-service nationwide bank for Americans.
The Nixon White House had quietly drafted and sponsored before Congress the Federal Charter Bill. The passage of this bill would have changed U.S. financial history. The financial coven of Wall Street and Federal Reserve central banking was about to be challenged like never before.
There had been power skirmishes between the Fed and the Treasury before, but the Fed prevailed. Then, out of the blue, in 1969, President Nixon was detected by Wall Street as surreptitiously planning a secret great challenge to the Federal Reserve system and Wall Street powers. In short order, Nixon became the target of bizarre allegations and calls for impeachment.
There was a direct link between Watergate and the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Arthur Burns, had his working office on the eighth floor of the Watergate complex. The famous "Watergate burglars" caught on the sixth floor were recruited with the specific requirement that they were capable of lifting and carrying up and down stairs. The office of Chairman Burns no doubt had heavy files that were carried down to the sixth floor for photographing. A photo in evidence at the Watergate hearings shows a rug background that may have been on the Chairman's office floor. The Watergate burglars were found to have been paid $6,300 directly from the Federal Reserve.
"I still don't understand how sexual orientation can possibly be a choice. There are certain visual/auditory/tactile/psychological/ect stimuli that make a person perk up, cause blood to rush to a certain region of that person's body and make that region extra sensitive, to explain arousal in crude, simple terms. "
That nytimes article said that women(both lesbian and straight) got perked up by baboon sex more than a hairy male chest, though they didn't say so.
"and of course is very different from female desire which is very broad and non-visual"
If female desire is non-visual, how come tall men do better than short men, when it comes to getting girls, men with a full head of hair do better than those who are balding, men who are in great shape do better than the flabby and obese and men with attractive, symmetrical faces do better than men with less than attractive faces? How come in movies, romantic male leads are always handsome?
"According to J. Michael Bailey, the MZ concordance figures for homosexuality are more like 20 percent, a bit higher perhaps, but certainly nowhere near the 52% Bruni states."
Right. I think I may have told Bailey at lunch in the 1990s that his first study's methodology -- advertising for twins in the Chicago gay newspaper -- had this problem. Say, your reaction to seeing this ad looking for twins is that you should tell Dwight and Dwayne, two gay identical twins whom you know from barhopping on Broadway, that they should take part n the study. But what about Tim, whom you know from late nights in Boys Town, who has an identical twin brother Tom, who is a teaching golf pro in Dubuque with a wife and three kids. You may not know that Tim has an identical twin, so you don't tell him to be part of the study.
I'm not sure if Bailey agrees with that analysis, but his second study, using the Australian government's registry of twins, found a lower concordance rate. In other words, in his first study, he started with gays and looked for twins; in his second study, he started with twins and looked for gays. That methodological difference seems to have impacted the results. It's an important piece of science, although I really don't know what it means.
Many (and perhaps most) of the lesbians I've known have had prior, heterosexual marriages, and many of them were mothers. Perhaps hormonal changes incline thirtysomething women to switch gender identities. And not a few, I suspect, simply got married for the sake of satisfying their maternal instinct, and to have a former husband to milk for alimony and child support.
I suspect there may be multiple causes for male homosexuality, with some being environmental. A lot of gay men are truly hypersexual - far hornier than all but the horniest straight men. That hypersexuality may not attach itself to a particular gender, but since men are generally looser than women it may be easier to satiisfy homosexually. I've known several gay men who openly admit they'd be willing to sleep with a woman.
Nixon did not get in trouble in 1969. Let's get real -- he got into trouble in 1973 over his re-election campaign, where he could not take a victory over McGovern and had to pile it on by third-rate burglaries. Nixon was a third-rater, who thought he was more clever than he was. Rumsfeld notes Nixon's "big ideas" and trumpeted initiatives vs. the traditional spoils politics that has been proven effective. Nixon followed the substance of FDR but did not imitate the form: actual spoils politics. That's why he resigned -- there was no one to defend him.
As for Stone, he's a lunatic strung out on drugs. Kennedy was self-evidently killed by that loon Oswald because he insisted on riding in that open limo. Just like McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz at the American Exposition in Buffalo, just like Charles Guiteau killed Garfield at the train platform in DC. Stone like most in Hollywood can't accept the mortality of their demi-God, it could not be just some lunatic like Guiteau, or Czolgosz, or Sara Jane Moore, or Squeaky Fromme. Whom famous people attract like flies (the downside of fame). No it had to be an operatic grand conspiracy, instead of the uncomfortable reminder that even lunatics can kill powerful people. Presidents even. Powerful men like to be out working the crowd, that's how they get powerful. But it has always left them vulnerable. Being seen.
I don't know how objective Bailey is as a researcher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Bailey#Appearances_in_news_media
"In 2011, Bailey was criticized for "poor judgment" by Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro after he allowed a female guest speaker and her partner to perform an impromptu mechanized sex toy demonstration in an optional after-class event on kinky sex and female orgasm."
he got into trouble in 1973 over his re-election campaign
He won in '72 in a landslide.
I'm shocked Whiskey dislikes Nixon....
"Whiskey said...
Nixon did not get in trouble in 1969. Let's get real -- he got into trouble in 1973 over his re-election campaign, where he could not take a victory over McGovern and had to pile it on by third-rate burglaries."
H.R. "Bob" Halderman subscribed to the theory that the target of the Watergate burglars was not the McGovern campaign - Nixon and his campaign people knew they were going to walk all over him - but rather the chairman of the Democratic party, Larry O'Brien, whose office was the actual target of the burglary. O'Brien had publicized the fact that Nixon had received a lot of money from Howard Hughes, which infuriated Nixon, as O'Brien himself had been on Hughes' payroll. Halderman claimed that Nixon had ordered the plumbers to dig up dirt on O'Brien.
As to the rest of your post, Whiskey, on conspiracy-mongering - that might have been the first intelligent post you've every made.
"Was Nixon gay?"
This has become a fashionable way to sell a biography - by claiming to reveal the shocking - astounding - fact that the subject was 1.) an anti-semite, and 2.) a homosexual (kind of gives you a clue as to the predilictions of a lot of publishers).
I am still awaiting a biography of Ernst Roehm that breathlessly reports that he was 1.) an anti-semite, and 2.) a homosexual.
Nixon seems to be a perpetual bogeyman.
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2010/11/19/the-hated-richard-nixons-ancestry/
- Nixon is hated for his politics
- Nixon was of 100%-colonial-stock
- It is politically-correct to hold Richard Nixon in contempt.
- Nixon was arguably the final American president that could be accused of sympathizing with populist-nationalism.
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/nixon-vs-the-federal-reserve/
"Did Nixon’s economic policies irk and scare the big-money interests and the Federal Reserve? Is this part of the reason why he was chased out of office?"
"That nytimes article said that women(both lesbian and straight) got perked up by baboon sex more than a hairy male chest, though they didn't say so."
This leads me to believe that their ways of registering female arousal are faulty. Or am I to accept that I'm a freak because I happen to prefer males of my own species to baboons of either gender? Perhaps it's true... Are there more women out there oriented towards bestiality than either normal straight or lesbian women? Maybe that's why all those "beta males" have trouble finding a girlfriend!
In the long run, all Presidents are gay
McKinley seemed to be recovering after his assassination, then went into shock the following week. Garfield lingered on 2 months after being shot (this scene is depicted on the wall at the Williams cafeteria for some reason). Nowadays you can be Congressperson from Arizona and actually get shot in the head, and the NY Times will consider you Teddy Roosevelt II and declare you for U.S. Senate.
"I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children."
But there are countless 'gay' men who have apparently sired children in the normal way. How does that work?
I enjoyed the opening of this bitchy newsitorial: "Nixon was many things — crafty, criminal, self-pitying, vengeful, paranoid." Hey, don't hold back, man. Last line is funny too.
There's no way Richard Nixon was gay.
He simply never had the sensitivity or gentleness about him to be gay - these are among the first things a gaydar picks up.
In fact Nixon seemed to be a rather horrible, cold, brutal and thoroughly unpleasnt and inhuman man, possibly working through some childhood parenting trauma.
One acid test is this.Could you imagine Nixon cuddling a puppy or kitten, or even adult cat or dog?
No, I can't either.
"But there are countless 'gay' men who have apparently sired children in the normal way. How does that work?"
The thing is, I'm not convinced Sailer is completely straight. Funnier still, Sailer thinks I want him to leave his wife and marry me (I'm a chick).
I'll throw out some possible explanations for you freudians:
Sailer wants me but pretends I want him.
Sailer is gay, pretending to be a straight married man & thinks I want him because he doesn't understand the secret heterosexual sexual code. ;0)
Sailer is gay and thinks women wishes he wasn't.
I want to have sex with some average looking guy I've only seen a face shot of on his blog, who writes quirky, sometimes witty, sometimes not articles on his blog because he has freckles (in the pic) and went to Rice (which has blue, which is my favorite color, for one of its school colors).
Discuss amongst yourselves.
Oh, yes, and Sailer's hypothetically real wife, this is purely for the sake of discussion. If I wanted to have sex that bad, I'd find some guy (by definition easy) and do it. I'm too evolved to confuse sex with love and vice versa and I don't need a man to support me. Knowing what I know of women, assuming the real wife of a guy I'm pretty sure is gay exists, I don't think you're worried. But, hey, if freckles mcflabbyass gets a little frisky when he thinks you're jealous, roll with it.
Have you seen Cynthia Nixon's partner? This is the kind of woman choice-lesbians hook up with:
http://justjared.buzznet.com/2009/05/17/cynthia-nixon-engaged-to-christine-marinoni/
Denial of the existence of political lesbianism is a question that needs to come out in the open in the next round of gay marriage discussions.
several things..
First, it's now an annoying trend to attribute any artists genius to gayness. Any introversion, admiration of male form = gay.
Second.. gayness and politics don't go together well, (worst still the military) Gays are fanatical, militant, brutal, - there is a reason the ancients from Tacitus onward associated sexual deviancy with tyranny.
Look at Rohr and the NS - founded in a munich gay bar called 'the sausage' - look at the ultra butch ss uniforms, still popular with gays today.
Lastly, the guy who helped get gayness declassified as a mental illness did a study of repartive therapy and found it could help in some cases.
I know the istevesphere rarely touches on religious issues, but a sincere conversion to Christianity can often result in a change of orientation. I know several cases.
Also a lack of a father figure (or contentious relationship) seems to be a common thread among militant atheists and militant gays.
Bailey's latest research suggest that "gay genes" make men more attractive to women. Let's say for example you get 3 of the 5 genes then you do better with women (e.g., you are more outgoing, fashionable, creative). However, if you get all five you are gay and it diminishes reproductive success.
In support of this he has found that straight brothers of gay men have more partners.
Someguy
Oh no you've bored Rainforest Giant! Don't you know you exist solely for his entertainment Steve?
"I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children."
Tom Robinson, composer of the 70s gay anthem "Glad to Be Gay," eventually fell in love with a woman, married her, and had kids.
Another good historical example: John Maynard Keynes.
"I've known lesbians who have ended up marrying men and having families. I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children."
You need to get out more. There was a couple at the corner south of us that consisted for a while of a male homosexual and a straight female. They had a child and divorced a few years later.
Malcolm Forbes, King James I, It happens all the time.
"If female desire is non-visual, how come tall men do better than short men, when it comes to getting girls"
This reminded me of something I read earlier. Men outside of women's ideal height for men are more likely to be gay.
http://blog.timesunion.com/kristi/24152/shorter-men-more-likely-to-be-gay/
Uhh, Whiskey, you do know who Nixon was going up against, right?
I mean, you are aware of his list of Scots-Irish opponents in the American political scene?
Right?
And you know which one of your Scots-Irish pals it was who betrayed Nixon?
Right?
Whiskey?
Anyone?
PS: And Leon Czolgosz as a lone gunman?
Are you off your rocker?!?
Have you never heard of the Scots-Irish-woman, Emma MacGoldman, or her partner in Presbyterianism, the Scots-Irishman Alexander MacBerkman?
Are you not aware of their attempt to assassinate Henry Clay Frick?
Have you not read MacGoldman's apologia for Czolgosz?
Poor Leon Czolgosz, your crime consisted of too sensitive a social consciousness. Unlike your idealless and brainless American brothers, your ideals soared above the belly and the bank account. No wonder you impressed the one human being among all the infuriated mob at your trial--a newspaper woman--as a visionary, totally oblivious to your surroundings. Your large, dreamy eyes must have beheld a new and glorious dawn.
Sheesh.
Go back to drinking your single malts in Tel Aviv and leave the historical revisionism to the folks who actually know a thing or two about real history.
Epic.
Fail.
How could Cynthia Nixon, for example, get tickly between her legs at the sight of a broad muscular chest and the sound of a deep voice, and then decide that she'll react that way to breasts instead?
You turned it into an either-or. I know of at least one study indicating that pretty much all kinds of sex arouses women.
But if people could control what arouses them, would anyone ever suffer from unrequited love?
Maybe only the people with the least self-control suffer the most?
Wouldn't people just decide that they'll be in love/get aroused by that other person who feels that way about them instead?
Isn't that mostly what we see?
Also, wouldn't pedophiles just decide to lust after adults instead
How do you know they don't?
Wouldn't those lonely, frustrated men who sometimes stop by this blog just switch their radar to obese or old women, if sexual attraction were a choice?
Maybe a lot of them do?
I think Whiskey makes some good points here for once. Anonymous 12:00AM seems to disagree that Nixon got in trouble over his '72 campaign because he won in a landslide. However, that is what Whiskey is pointing out; that Nixon won by a landslide, but it wasn't enough to beat him,he had to try to dig up dirt on either him or other Democrats. It's like a villain who is winning a race fair and square, but still cheats to try to hamper his opponents further. He resents them so much he wants to sabotage them, even when it isn't necessary.
As for Oswald, I think Steve already pointed out a long time ago that part of what drives the conspiracy theories is the fact that Oswald apparently wanted to be part of a conspiracy. He did contact a lot of weird people (like the mob) before assassinating JFK. Presumably he thought that he needed someone backing him or sponsoring him in order to work out the logistics of murdering JFK. Of course, he was so obviously unhinged that no one wanted to work with him (and a lot of people also might not really have any motive for killing JFK in the first place, even if they could get away with it). When no one agreed to sponsor him, he decided to go do it himself, and it turned out to be easier than he had thought. But it left a trail that looks suspicious.
First, can anyone explain the evolutionary reason for Gayness? I'm trying to think how man-on-man sex equals "Survival of the Fittest
Maybe it's like eunuchs. I.e., it enhances someone else's fitness, and thereby, the group's. Or maybe it doesn't enhance anyone's fitness.
If female desire is non-visual, how come tall men do better than short men, when it comes to getting girls, men with a full head of hair do better than those who are balding, men who are in great shape do better than the flabby and obese and men with attractive, symmetrical faces do better than men with less than attractive faces? How come in movies, romantic male leads are always handsome?
1.) Female attraction is far less explained by the visual, which is not to say the visual has no impact.
2.) Confidence
3.) Status
Are there any studies showing female homosexuals have more committed relationships than male homosexuals?
I've seen a few stats indicating their relationships are either more volatile or equally short-lived compared to married heterosexuals.
Apparently Nixon was descended from Albanian stock, from the female line.
Quite frankly, he does look more Greek or Albanian than he does Anglo-Saxon.
"I've known quite a few women who are bi-sexual (or at least play at being one for a while until they get married), but truly bi-sexual men seem rare. I've known lesbians who have ended up marrying men and having families. I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children."
What? Many married women whose husbands later "came out" (or stayed in but could have come out) would be surprised. I'm surprised that you'd be surprised. Marriage is absolutely not an indicator or absolute non-gayness. That's why we have what's called a "closet." And "beards."
I've lived with a female roommate for many years. If you had to name the relationship it would be "sistes" not married couple or "gay". We're not interested in physical intimacy with other women. Never for moment. One of use has been married twice, the other wouldn't have minded but was not that caring one or another.
Anyway, my point is, I don't know about men, but with women, not marrying or staying single and doing the Golden Girls things is not indicative of "gayness." To be lesbian a woman must self-identify as one. IMO, men should have the same option.
With a nickname like Tricky Dick, you have to wonder.
When Cynthia says she "chose" to be gay, she means exactly that: she chose to "be" gay, i.e., come out. The choice was her choice to acknowledge what she is. In response, every poof in America (if the hype is true) is throwing bricks at her. It's no fun being an airhead but being a Stalinist must feel terrific.
As creatures self-aware of our own mortality (if for no other good reason), there are some urges bestowed upon us which must be wrestled with and understood, at least in part, beyond the bounds of evolutionary theory.
Consider, as a parallel to evolutionarily 'unfit' homosexuality, the question of BDSM.
Now, from a certain viewpoint it needn't compromise our sense of Darwinian purpose if we consider that a man bestowing a spanking upon a consenting partner, or adorning or treating her in such a way (within private bounds, hopefully) as to make her feel, for the moment, like chattel, could well be enhancing the sense of trust and dependency within the relationship. And, ahem, the fitness of the woman in the partnership trusting herself to the kind of security a manly man can provide.
But where's the evolutionary fitness if the man is submitting? Yet men 'submit' . . .
Or what about the whole subgenre of BDSM (I'm talking about written pornography here) with "L'Histoire D'O" at its apex, that involves what can only be called self-immolation: stories in which heroines (or heroes) are reduced literally to chattel, sometimes even to death or imprisonment? What 'instinct' are we dealing with here? --I'm comfortable arguing that this is a 'perverse' or somehow degenerate or, to really cleanse the air, a simply *immoral* kind of storytelling-- but what does it portend? [strictly speaking, I'm not demonizing these authors either, most of whom, I assume, function as normal or even bland people in daylight]
I prefer to get my fix on "Thanatos" from Rebecca West than Dr. Freud, but it seems to me that somewhere along the line you have to call in the theologians or poets.
It's actually the "baboon sex" (if I'm reading that correctly) and Maya's response that provoked this train of thought. I suspect that what aroused the women subjects (do I have that right?) is the simple animal *rutting* of it. Not emphasizing "animal" qua anything to do with bestiality; just simply the *sex* of it.
Women-- or men too-- might respond to that as an unadorned fact: look, there's some mating happening there. But it is vastly unfit for human beings, even in a godless universe, to calculate purely upon such a reptilian-brain response. And thankfully, it would seem, for the most part that's really a submerged aspect of our psyches. Not submerged in the ominous sense of a Secret Compulsion; just something that's faded away like twilight.
I mean, it takes more to get with a girl than to bring a couple of mutts into her front yard and get her to watch them rutt. I should hope.
"This leads me to believe that their ways of registering female arousal are faulty. Or am I to accept that I'm a freak because I happen to prefer males of my own species to baboons of either gender? "
The conclusion was women don't know what they want, or rather what their vaginas want, that their physical arousal(blood flow to a certain part of body) is in a disconnect with their mental arousal and thus they can want anything they say they want without being accused of bestiality and poor ethics in general. Unlike penile plethysmograph's rulings on male sexual offenders.
The study was by a Bailey, mentioned above, protege.
Richard Nixon and Bebe Rebozo were just dudes in a Rad Bromance.
Homosexuality is nature's way of teaching mankind what not to wear.
The proof resides in the "chromosomal trait" certain to be discovered for Project Runway.
"Perhaps hormonal changes incline thirtysomething women to switch gender identities. "
More likely a change in the social settings.
"Richard Lippa (2006) found that higher sex drive was connected to greater desire for both men and women in women only; men appeared to have increased desire for one sex or the other. However, the self-report measures Lippa used were highly subjective, and reporting bias is likely to have occurred.
Roy Baumeister's review (2000) suggests that women have a more flexible and socially influenced sex drive than men, varying their amount and type of sexual activity widely over the course of their lifetimes."
http://differenceblog.livejournal.com/63069.html
"he got into trouble in 1973 over his re-election campaign
He won in '72 in a landslide."
Do you think you found a contradiction or something? Or did you just want to post "ditto"?
"I've known quite a few women who are bi-sexual (or at least play at being one for a while until they get married), but truly bi-sexual men seem rare."
I knew a gay man who was both amused and chagrined at the fact that so many of his "dates" were guys with girlfriends or wives.
"I've known lesbians who have ended up marrying men and having families. I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children."
I've known one such man. He was later arrested for "public sexual indecency" (soliciting sex in an area known to be frequented by gay men for that purpose) at his local park.
"I don't know how objective Bailey is as a researcher."
Yeah, he pushed the limits there with his class, but in the field of sexuality research, his work is respected.
"One acid test is this.Could you imagine Nixon cuddling a puppy or kitten, or even adult cat or dog?"
Actually, yes, I can. Often people who aren't good with people are great with animals.
Since then, gay men have become more politicized. Back in 1994, few cared about Gay Marriage, but it's one of those issues that can easily be turned into a test of whether or not "You like me! You really like me!
I'm not sure that gay's care any more about "gay marriage" than they did twenty years ago. The big difference is that straight white liberals have decided that fighting for "gay rights" should be the new way to demonstrate their wonderfulness.
Nixon was the George W. Bush of the 70s--the conservative liberals loved to hate.
Oddly, I always identified with him as an obvious introvert forced to do an extrovert's job.
I've never known a gay man who has subsequently married a woman and had children.
Lot's of gay men are married and have children.
I've known lesbians who have ended up marrying men and having families.
My sister knows a woman, married and with an eight year old son, who left her husband and got female-to-male surgery.
I still don't understand how sexual orientation can possibly be a choice.
There's a lot of ground in between "sexual orientation is hard-wired in your genes" and "sexual orientation is a conscious choice".
From Wikipedia's article on C. Nixon:
Marinoni gave birth to their son, Max Ellington Nixon-Marinoni, in 2011.
So homosexual sex can be procreative? You learn new things from Wikipedia everyday.
there are a lot of straight women who don't enjoy male-on-female sex.
There are a lot of straight men who don't enjoy male-on-female sex and for whom it is just a form of glorified masturbation. If your only goal is an orgasm, women are not a necessity.
It's been widely assumed that the human brain is sexually dimorphic.
I know at least one research team has claimed that the hemispheric symmetry of the homosexual male brain more closely resembles that of the straight female brain and that the more irregular symmetry of the female gay brain more closely resembles that of the straight male brain, but such imaging shows only slight similarities and I don't think they established that by looking at hemispheric size they can predict sexual orientation with any reliability. Plus, IIRC, I don't think their sample size was great.
Again, regarding brain dimorphism, I think it was Levay's work which originally pointed out that an area in the hypothalamus of the gay male brain is smaller that the same area of the straight male brain (and I think this has been discovered in the brains of male-oriented versus female-orientic domestic sheep as well--see the work of Charles Roselli).
Of course, there's always the possibility that the brain is changed by behavior so until there exists a non-invasive test to compare the brains of infants or growing children (or sheep) who wind up gay and straight with what winds up to be their adult brains, we can't know if the structural differences, if indeed they do exist, were there from the beginning or if experience played a part in their structure.
Very interestingly, news was made when a Harvard researcher, Catherine Dulac, discovered that the disabling of pheromone receptors in male and female mice totally flipped not only their sexual behaviors but other behaviors typically assigned to "male" and "female." This is important because we had assumed that even rodent brains were sexually/gender dimorphic but her research seems to show that it is the chemosensory input from the vomeronasal organ (VMO) that regulates sexual and gendered roles in the rodent. The brain only reacts to that input:
"She discovered, for example, that pheromone receptors relay their signals through a common pathway involving the transient receptor potential C2 channel (TRPC2). Male mice lacking the gene for TRPC2 fail to display aggression toward other males and initiate sexual and courtship behaviors toward both males and females. "It was assumed that the VNO was essential for mating, but we found that it is needed for sex discrimination," says Dulac, who published that work in 2002.
"Five years later, her group reported that female mice lacking TRPC2 exhibited fewer female-specific behaviors and had adopted characteristics of male sexual and courtship behaviors. These findings suggest that neuronal circuits underlying male-specific behaviors are present in the female mouse brain, but the VNO acts to repress male behaviors and activate female ones. 'The concept of a 'male brain' and a 'female brain' went out the window with that study,' " says Dulac.
http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/dulac_bio.html
While other primates and humans have no functional VMO and there's been no good evidence that we react to pheromones, nature does conserve a great deal, and one wonders if even up the food chain we too are subject to sensory inputs taken in by some as-yet unknown receptors lying somewhere about and males/females process these chemosensory stimuli differently.
We think of ourselves as primarily visual creatures, as least men seem to be sexually stimulated by the visual, but I've often wondered why they don't do more work with the blind-from birth human male. What's he reacting to?
First, can anyone explain the evolutionary reason for Gayness?
Can anyone explain it as anything other than a dysfunctional adaptation, or an adaptation to a dysfunctional environment?
Globalist freaks out over Putin's nationalism and compares him with Hitler and Stalin.
Bem's EBE "Exotic becomes Erotic" theory is a fun read http://dbem.ws/Exotic%20Becomes%20Erotic.pdf and http://dbem.ws/APA%20Address.pdf There are cultures where all males, in their adolescence, go through extensive homosexual initiations and, interestingly, adult homosexuality does not exist in these cultures.
since everybody knows that the behavior of all minority groups is controlled wholly by their genes; nobody should be allowed to doubt genetic determinism like Nixon is doing, at least not in public.
A lot of people in HBD-land seem to be strong believers in genetic determinism as well, unfortunately.
The truth seems to lie somewhere in between genetic determinism on the one hand and pure "choice" on the other. That, is, your genes pre-dispose you to a certain range of behaviors, and where you wind up in that range is determined by other factors.
So it is probably the case that some people really are hard-wired to be heterosexual or homosexual and can be nothing else. But other people with different genes may be only loosely hetro or homosexual and can "switch teams" under the right circumstances.
Hey, glad to know that sensitivity and gentleness are gay traits. That and a great love of stomping around in black leather and jackboots for those gays who were born too late to join the SS.
I don't know, I remember the term "transgressive" was ubiquitous among gay men in the early '90's. Gay men were never as uniformly dour as lesbians, so that made them look less political.
I agree with Maya. If I'd had the choice, I'd have spent my '20's being enthralled with all the Jewish chicks who were enthralled with me, instead of the Greta Schacchi types who wouldn't look at me.
Nixon and dogs? What about Checkers?
I keep trying to track down the Heinlein quote I recall reading in one of his books when young about how intelligent human beings choose their sexual behaviour but I can't find it.
The modern Left appears to have abandoned freedom of choice as a political concept worth defending.
Nixon was a third-rater, who thought he was more clever than he was.
Yeah, that's what a beta would say.
Beyond that, its hard to square the theory that Oswald acting alone with CIA veteran (and Watergate burglar) E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, taped by his son, that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/jesse-ventura-tru-tv-jfk-deathbed-confession-e-howard-hunt-2729478.html
nixon's comments about jews caught on tape means that he will be very vilified. it confirms the 'every gentile is one step away from goose stepping" fear of the jewish elite.
I'm still trying to *ahem* "come to grips" with the pic of Cynthia Nixon's ummm, errr, "partner," Christine Marinoni.
Damn if she doesn't look like Carrot Top's maiden aunt.
Gives a whole new meaning to plumbers.
Now we know why Nixon really went to China. Mao was gay too.
Re: Fassbinder
"He [Dirk Bogarde] had worked with Fassbinder, so I thought he was gay in the good way, (laughing) but he was gay in the bad way." Very amusing Lars von Trier interview
There's no way Richard Nixon was gay.He simply never had the sensitivity or gentleness about him to be gay - these are among the first things a gaydar picks up.
In fact Nixon seemed to be a rather horrible, cold, brutal and thoroughly unpleasnt and inhuman man, possibly working through some childhood parenting trauma.
One acid test is this.Could you imagine Nixon cuddling a puppy or kitten, or even adult cat or dog?
No, I can't either.
Richard Nixon actually owned two dogs when he was in the White House. One was an Irish Setter and one was a smaller female dog. One of the vignettes in Woodward & Bernstein's The Final Days concerns the aftermath of his resignation speech. One of his retainers fetched the smaller dog and placed it on the lap of the visibly distraught President, to comfort him.
Honestly, Richard Nixon was married for 53 years. He had, by all accounts, not only the loyalty but fairly uncomplicated affection from his daughters. His dealings with his sons-in-law were unproblematic. He had a short list of friends, but those friendships were close and durable.
Consider, by contrast, Ronald Reagan. Reagan was a loner; his only durable, non-superficial, and unproblematic relationship was with his wife. He had uneven dealings with his children, and he and their mothers comprehensively failed to impart in them a necessary minimum of personal dignity. The Reagan Administration generated a string of memoirists who made him look foolish, which Nixon's did not. The reason was stated by Donald T. Regan: "People are not loyal to the Reagans because the Reagans are not loyal".
I saw Tom Robinson in concert in 1979. I always understood he was gay, but didn't really believe it.
"Bailey's latest research suggest that "gay genes" make men more attractive to women. Let's say for example you get 3 of the 5 genes then you do better with women (e.g., you are more outgoing, fashionable, creative). However, if you get all five you are gay and it diminishes reproductive success.
In support of this he has found that straight brothers of gay men have more partners."
Doesn't sound like Bailey's work. Source, please?
"Can anyone explain it as anything other than a dysfunctional adaptation, or an adaptation to a dysfunctional environment?"
Because it's fitness-reducing, it's maladaptive, but the gay lobby, including many researchers who happen to be gay, would rather term it "atypical" and/or part of "normal variation."
Once, in a contentious discussion about terminology and whether it was valid to refer to homosexuality as a " biological disorder" or as "maladaptive," as opposed to "just another one of nature's myriad of wondrous varieties in the human species," a poster offered this:
Picture two lesbians partners, both of whom have perfectly healthy reproductive systems and/or two gay men, both of whom have perfectly healthy reproductive systems, entering a fertility clinic. The poster who insisted the term "maladaptive" was accurate asked of those with whom he was arguing, "What's wrong with this picture?"
The response from one of those arguing for "there's no developmental or biological error that has occurred and it's not maladaptive": "Huh? I don't see what you're getting at."
True story-
After we had our first child in our current home, my wife and I were contacted out of the blue by the next door neighbor girl who asked if she could come and see the baby. The girl was only 9 at the time, but very intelligent, very precocious, and seemingly allowed a very long lead by her parents, who didn't seem to mind her coming and going at will or even having her own email address. Anyway, we struck up a relationship with her over the years (birthday parties, Christmas gifts) and eventually came to adore her- even joking about adopting her since her parents seemed to ignore her and certainly weren't doing enough to nurture her potential. This made me wistful on a different level, though, because our smart little neighbor girl was a living, breathing Lisa Simpson- at 10 she even told us (no sh!t!) she had become a Buddhist! Our neighborhood is "mixed" in a 50's America sense- pockets of white middle-middle class families in a largely lower middle class neighborhood with a few arriviste working class households. What made me wistful, though, is thinking how all across this great land of ours thousands of other nice, talented white girls of modest background are being groomed to achieve excellence (ours was homeschooled until 10, so the suggestions of parental neglect she gave us were probably greatly exaggerated)- and that many will- in fields like critical race theory, "progressive" documentary film making, and civil rights litigation. In other words, as an inevitable byproduct of their ascent up the social ladder they would become ideologically conditioned and then occupationally rewarded to assist in the destruction of the few remaning white, lower middle class communities that can still produce such wonderful girls on the cheap (I single out girls just because there's less of a rah-rah industry of activists making sure boys achieve their full potential, plus boys are more likely to go into apolitical science and tech fields and less likely to go into politicized one like media and government).
Anyway, to circle back to the topic at hand- my wife, through some Facebook forensics work- learned that our neighbor girl's mom (producer of 6 kids with the youngest only 3) had left the family to shack up with another woman! The grown kids were chastising their mom for letting the new girlfriend put a photo of them together as her profile pic, and for how some of her new Sapphic friends were writing how she'd never looked happier on her Facebook wall. Personally I think she had had enough of the stay-at-home mom grind and took what opportunity presented.
Lucius asked, concerning S&M
But where's the evolutionary fitness if the man is submitting? Yet men 'submit' . . ."
_______________________________
"Fitness" in evolutionary biology refers only to one's success at getting one's genes into the next generation. "Fitness" doesn't care if a man plays the submissive role in sex play as long as he shoots bullets and they're not blanks.
I think Mr. Anon sees what is going on here. People love thinking that reactionaries, the intellectual leadership and the mouth-breathing masses, are closet gays, with sadistic impulses. It's one of Stephen King's favorite literary memes, but not limited to him, of course. People can't seem to grasp the notion that there are passionless people, whose cruelty is that of calculation and not of Sade.
Some of this is fueled by the Kinsey-esque impulse of many to deal with their own guilt and sexual hangups by arguing everyone deep down is just like they are. Freud provided the theoretical framework, but not the emotional need for this sort of comforting explanation. The reality that some people can go cradle to the grave without experiencing profound pain, frustration, neurosis, angst etc. just doesn't seem fair.
I'm not arguing this in Nixon's case, the guy was a deeply troubled guy.
"I know of at least one study indicating that pretty much all kinds of sex arouses women."
Not really. They found that all kinds of pictures involving intimacy, even, yes, bonobos getting it on, seemed to get an "arousal" from women, but being a woman, I think another poster has it right: I doubt seriously that measuring "arousal" for a woman is as direct and as simple as measuring arousal of a male.
We get giddy over lots of things, get tingly in lots of places because we it's because, I believe, that we females connect the images before us to OTHER images or because we attach an emotion to a picture and that emotion gets translated into a very different image than the one presented to us.
Simplified: a woman sees something she considers "cute"--maybe two bonobos cuddling or petting. We then translate "cute" into an emotion such as longing or desire for one we think is "cute" or attractive, our husband, our boyfriend, a really hunky movie star we've been lusting after....in other words, we women are very sensitive to suggestion and we connect dots in a way I don't think men need to.
They see. They react. We see. We link one image to another, then another...
Someguy said...
In support of this he has found that straight brothers of gay men have more partners.
Seems to me to be a case of a broken appropriate-sexual-partner identification module in the brain
Off Topic, but check out the pictures of Haiti's elite
www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/12/haitis_1_percent#0
Beyond that, its hard to square the theory that Oswald acting alone with CIA veteran (and Watergate burglar) E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession, taped by his son, that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
It's also hard to square it with the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RUlYJxWE7s
But other people with different genes may be only loosely hetro or homosexual and can "switch teams" under the right circumstances.
This is still genetic determinism.
If female desire is non-visual, how come tall men do better than short men, when it comes to getting girls
Any man who thinks that female desire is non-visual knows nothing at all about women. That's not to say that what women find to be visually attractive in men is exactly the same as what (straight) men find find visually attractive in other men.
While there is a general consensus among men and women about what makes an attractive woman, the female notion of what makes for a visually attractive man can often leave men scratching their heads. And concocting odd theories like "game" in an attempt to explain why women like what they like.
"But other people with different genes may be only loosely hetro or homosexual and can "switch teams" under the right circumstances."
This is still genetic determinism.
You don't know the meanings of words.
Steve, Please explain how you picked up on the fact that Cynthia Nixon was lesbian.
Women like Cynthia Nixon often identify as "queer", which seems to mean they do what they like, usually with women but sometimes with men as they feel moved.
I think the case for a fitness penalty to lesbianism is pretty weak, at least if you're not exclusively lesbian. Women who have kids, then discover they're attracted to women around menopause pay no fitness cost whatsoever. Women who reproduce (in many societies, they had little choice in practice until relatively recently) are limited in their offspring, not by how often they have sex, but by the available resources for their kids. They pay little fitness cost for preferring women to men for fun, as long as they manage to crank out a few kids.
It seems like male homosexuality is a lot more likely to have had fitness costs thrughout history, because the number of offspring a man has is much more strongly related to how often and how widely he sleeps with women. F--king your neighbor's wife is more likely to get you killed, but also more likely to leave copies of your genes lying around, than f--king your male neighbor.
In jail many people go gay (and I supposed the dudes actually do get it up, otherwise it wouldn't work, would it?) and then when they get out, they go straight again when they get out.
Just sayin'...
Sexuality is rather plastic and able to fixate on anything, if the Internet means anything.
If fetish sites are to be believed, people apparently get off on feet, people covered in food, nurse outfits, whips and chains, schoolgirl outfits, incest, urine, and much else...
Is all this is innate too? Will somebody please notify me when they find the nurse's outfit fetish gene? I need to know my nurse-outfit orientation before I embark on a medical career.
OT--a request for help: some time ago a prof, I think anthropology or literature, US or Canada, quoted something "racist" in class as an example. One female student raised a stink about it as even quoting verboten things would perpetuate racist thinking. Apparently, she's following some fashionable new meme of her academic tribe. She got lambasted and ridiculed on the web, to no avail--she wouldn't understand. Does anyone remember? I need names or an url, thanks in advance.
"In jail many people go gay (and I supposed the dudes actually do get it up, otherwise it wouldn't work, would it?) and then when they get out, they go straight again when they get out.
Just sayin'..."
Has that been your experience, Svigor?
"Whatcha gonna do when you get outta jail?"
"I'm gonna have some fun, natural fun."
from some rap song
It's possible that I have a better insight into Mike Bailey's views than most, since A. I've actually read many of his papers, B. we've corresponded for years, and C, he called me last night, and we talked for an hour and a half.
It is fair to say that he thinks that my hypothesis (homosexuality is caused by some pathogen), although unproven, is the strongest and most plausible
one extant. Mike actually knows that selection is important, more than you can say abut most biologists, medical geneticists, and behavioral geneticists.
There's news: it looks as if we're going to see a GWAS study of homosexuality. Results are not in yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to it.
Fascinating discussion. On female sexuality, I must admit to remaining sceptical about the existence of the great female orgasm. Of course women don't want to miss out on anything, and I'm quite sure they experience deep and meaningful arousal in their own ways. But women are great imitators and appropriators. So when they talk about 'orgasms', I'm not sure we mean the same thing. It's a little like wondering if a cat really sees the colour blue.
I raise all this just to suggest that male sexuality and female sexuality are very different; and therefore it's no surprise that male and female homosexuality are not necessarily similar... except for the political element that someone mentioned above.
Gilbert Pinfold.
I think lesbianism was fitness increasing in the past at least, because it has the tendency to arouse males (you can get 2).
"First, can anyone explain the evolutionary reason for Gayness?"
Possible side-effect of twinning and/or chimerism in general
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-chimerism.htm
standard outcome in cattle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemartin
"Perhaps hormonal changes incline thirtysomething women to switch gender identities."
Makes me wonder if it could work in other directions e.g. son's DNA turning mom gay or gay-ish?
although
"Nixon and/or the character she played on that show was an obvious angry repressed lesbian"
i had a similar view but just angry and put it down to the red hair.
###
"Agreed, unless she has two circuits that can be tripped, but I don't buy the notion of bisexuality either."
My sample of two weren't so much bisexual as seemed to have no sexual barriers at all.
###
"I saw Tom Robinson in concert in 1979. I always understood he was gay, but didn't really believe it."
ditto
I knew a guy who always pretended he was thinking of going into the priesthood and used his celibate and priestly manner to get women into bed. Robinson reminded me of him.
the vamp - you totally lost me, no idea where you were going with your comment.
Steve writes: "Since then, gay men have become more politicized. Back in 1994, few cared about Gay Marriage."
Chiming in late here, but Steve is betraying an uncharacteristically short memory. The gay community (meaning both men and women) was highly politicized throughout the 80s by AIDS, an issue that inspired far more activism and organization than same sex marriage.
As to the blindingly stupid claim by Anon at 4:30 am that "Gays are fanatical, militant, brutal, - there is a reason the ancients from Tacitus onward associated sexual deviancy with tyranny)," deviancy isn't synonymous with homosexuality, and alleging that one's enemies are homosexual has been used in propaganda for centuries (sometimes the claim was even true). It's still being used today (see Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim).
The "born gay" dogma is necessary because if homosexuality isn't immutable, it can't be an aggrieved identity of the same order as Race and Sex. Black leaders recognize this too, when they take offense at the analogy.
So in the coming gay tyranny any high school boy who develops a gay crush will be taught it's all over for him now, vagina-wise (of course this only goes one way--someone going gay is merely throwing off his shackles, but anyone trying to go straight is denying his nature to conform).
We can't have people closeting themselves! So now homosexuality is like the Mafia, nobody gets out alive. No wonder kids are committing suicide.
Gays are the Scientologists of Sex.
Well I don't know if he was gay or not, but he had some less than acceptable things to say about the Scotch-Irish. Speaking of which, I wonder what Whiskey has to say on th... Oh! He hates Nixon. Quelle surprise.
"Women who have kids, then discover they're attracted to women around menopause pay no fitness cost whatsoever. "
Astounding that at the point when a woman becomes physiologically less inclined to have sex she suddenly can't control an urge to mount other women. I always thought you were a woman, NOTA. Guess I was wrong. Lower estrogen levels leading to a testosterone fueled sex drive, sorry not buying it.
The few lesbians I've known who once functioned as heterosexuals had certain personality traits in common though. For instance, there's this almost fetishistic obsession with the specialness/uniqueness of one's personal relationships, the pouring over every detail as if no one else had ever had a child, friend or lover. What you're probably observing is more a function of the women having grown or almost grown children so they can now focus on their own desires and inclinations.
Despite the many comments to the contrary on this thread, people really aren't as driven by hormones as animals. Men who start pursuing younger women upon reaching midlife have lower not higher testosterone levels. The drive to cheat is more psychological than folk wisdom suggests and menopausal women don't suddenly have the hormone levels of 18 yo males any more than middle aged men do.
"Robinson reminded me of him."
Yeah, "2-4-6-8 Motorway" wasn't exactly Cole Porter.
There's some other English rock star from that era who made a big deal about being gay. ... Pete Shelley of the Buzzcocks and "Homo Sapien." I think he got married later.
Gay to straight seems not all that uncommon in England. Keynes, for example.
Jon Moss, the bassist from Culture Club, was in a relationship with Boy George but then ended up getting married and having children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Moss
"A new book says Dick Nixon was once seen clutching the hand of Presidential Buddy Bebe Rebozo for a minute. Proof!"
Isn't it funny how gays have this almost Stalinist reflex to "out" any behavior that will make someone who can no longer defend himself?
I've noted how they and their fellow travellers are always nagging the world about "sensitivity" and "caring", but turn around and reinforce a stereotype: "OMG, he's holding another man's hand! He must be gay!" It couldin't be simply a moment of compassion or empathy, could it, oh right thinking ones? Rather than being "aware", they stunt emotions into the most childish of boxes.
I've heard "The Joke" in a slightly different, more precise form:
What does a gay man bring to a second date?
A man...
Nixon's negative image preceded--by quite some time--his presidency or even his candidacy v. JFK.
He was a hate object of the first order over the entire left (not excluding the large D majority among the ordinary working-class).
In retrospect, it seems to me that his cardinal sin in those days was to have been the prosecutor who'd convicted Alger Hiss, whom everyone just "knew" had been framed.
I was a kid in those days, not at all interested in politics. But one couldn't help but be aware of general sentiment in a given area.
In retrospect, though I have no knowledge of what Nixon's life was like during those years, I don't think it far-fetched at all to allow that he may have been deeply affected, perhaps even driven half-mad, by the abuse routinely heaped on him--enough to have made even a perfectly normal person paranoid.
Adolescent male homosexual relations that one later grows out of seem quite common especially among the English public school elite. Quite a few members of the British ruling class have known one another at a younger age.
Jon Moss said on a BBC documentary a few years back that he hadn't thought of himself as gay but that Boy George was the most amazing person he'd ever met, so he found George's propositions so flattering that he succumbed.
He didn't elaborate on the ins and outs of their relationship, though.
Hell yes, isteve is here for my entertainment.
The topic was sound, (tell-alls accusing a public figure of being gay, homophobe, racist, etc) but the presentation was flat and linked to none of why people come to isteve. One of the commenters did a better job of linking it to Steve's normal interests than Steve did.
Nixon was an obvious heterosexual and while his brand of 'conservatism' has doomed us to the likes of Mitt, he's been so pilloried by the left that he can be accused of practically anything and the reaction is 'ho-hum'.
'Nixon was a cannibal?' Everyone knew that. 'Nixon kept slaves in the White House basement?' phht, big deal common knowledge in '74.
Steve discussing the possibility that J. Edgar was 'passing'? That is interesting, first it goes directly against the conventional wisdom (everyone knows he was a closeted self-hating homophobe). Second, it has some meat to it. Finally, it is a chapter in a life that few others will examine.
On female sexuality and desire, I'm not convinced that women can really be attracted to anyone or have real orgasms either. I like those studies that prove females get hot and bothered by basicly anything. It proves that the whole shtick about women prefering guys who work out, have no beer gut and clear skin is total bullshit. It's not similar to me not wanting to fuck some butch whale with menopausal whiskers. I can't help it. The only reason women dont sleep with fugly dudes is out of being a bitch. It's all the same to them. The study says so. As for "female orgasms", the muslims have it right. Cut that clit out, so another man won't fool her into thinking that she can actualy have orgasms. It's not true anyway. Some guys are assholes they ruin it for everybody by convincing girls they fuck that they can orgasm. Healthy females show sexuality different from men. They get "aroused", but not physically like a man, when they can please a nice dude doesn't matter what he looks like. Women who lie that they are not "attracted" or not "satisfied" with what a dude does are psychotic bitches who wanto be men.
Ah, but if a male submissive is made to withold himself . . .
It's fair to reply, all evolution wants is for the seed to succeed. But let me confess, I'm Nietzschean about Darwinism and never really bought that.
I feel there must be some Will to Life/Power/ something (God? The Good?) that just doesn't want a schmuck to pass on his seed, however much the schmuck himself is driven by the white noise of Evolution to.
Natura Naturata can cheer every single time genes get passed on, if that's all 'success' means to her; but sometimes, somehow, you can hear Natura Naturans weeping.
Natura Naturans wants-- something better.
gcochran said,
"Mike [Bailey]actually knows that selection is important, more than you can say abut most biologists, medical geneticists, and behavioral geneticists.
"There's news: it looks as if we're going to see a GWAS study of homosexuality. Results are not in yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to it."
***********************************
gcochran is referring to a several years' long study funded by an NIH grant which sought a huge sample size of 1,000 gay brothers. (It's taking them a REALLY long time to analyze the date, IMO).
I am guessing Greg Cochran feels they'll find/have found nothing to connect male homosexuality to genes...unless it's to immune system genes?
***********************************
From the study's website:
"Researchers from the NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, and University of Illinois at Chicago are searching for genes that influence male sexual orientation.
"We are seeking families with two or more living gay brothers to assist us in our research. Participants are asked to provide a DNA sample (blood or saliva) and answer questionnaires.
"The purpose of this study is to see whether gay brothers on average share genetic regions inherited from their parents. When studying a trait, such as sexual orientation, with genetic techniques it is much more efficient to focus on the less common variant; hence, we are studying families with gay brothers to learn more about the development of male sexual orientation. This study will shed light on the role of genetics in the development of sexual orientation of human males."
***********************************
The gay community (meaning both men and women) was highly politicized throughout the 80s by AIDS, an issue that inspired far more activism and organization than same sex marriage.
I think the common thread here is gay men will mobilize when venereal disease decimates their ranks (further marginalizing an already marginal group). Then they'll mobilize again when they want broader access to health insurance to pay for their or their partners' anti-retrovirals. And I bet that at least privately, most lesbians aren't too exercised about AIDS.
Also, it strikes me that there is something going on when so many of these coming-out stories take place when the individuals have hit midlife and their sex drive and sexual market value are cratering. Cynthia Nixon concludes that what REALLY trips her trigger in her 40's is a beefy, high-T female her own age. Eugene Robinson decides in his late 50's (after fathering children) that he really prefers anal with other elderly men. Seriously? And then these twisted geezers are granted social standing way out of proportion to their biological merit.
"Nixon's negative image preceded--by quite some time--his presidency or even his candidacy v. JFK.
He was a hate object of the first order over the entire left (not excluding the large D majority among the ordinary working-class)."
I can attest that the loathing for Nixon among liberals was a visceral reaction, almost like vomiting after food poisoning.
The hatred and the smugness for feeling the hatred (it was evidence of one's moral superiority) were about equal.
"Quite a few members of the British ruling class have known one another at a younger age."
Boarding schools mirror prisons in that regard.
"There's some other English rock star from that era who made a big deal about being gay. ... Pete Shelley of the Buzzcocks and "Homo Sapien." I think he got married later."
As well as promoting drugs, dangerous excess and promiscuity to children the people who run the music business like to promote homosexuality and gender bending as well so i imagine quite a few musicians have pretended - like the Village People.
I expect there's a casting couch element as well what with all those goodlooking and desperate to succeed teenagers.
I think lesbianism was fitness increasing in the past at least, because it has the tendency to arouse males
Speaking as a male, I've never understood why some guys claim to be aroused by lesbians. And it cannot "increase fitness" (that is, lead to procreative sex) for reasons which should be blindingly obvious. Lesbians are not going to have sex with you.
If "the vamp" is a chick, then I'm the King of The Martians.
I think the case for a fitness penalty to lesbianism is pretty weak, at least if you're not exclusively lesbian.
If you're not exclusively lesbian then you're not actually a lesbian. You're bi-sexual.
It proves that the whole shtick about women preferring guys who work out, have no beer gut and clear skin is total bullshit.
If this isn't parody/trolling, Sailer's Law of Female Journalism as applies to "Gamers" has been ably demonstrated.
The real question for the gamer, once he realizes it's all bullshit, is whether to take up macrame or an automatic weapon.
Hey kids, life is unfair. Blessings are unevenly distributed. Get over it and marry a nice homely girl. She's probably going to be more trustworthy and loyal anyway. What the f--- are you ladies bitching about? That you can't have everything? That Nature is so intolerably unfair? I see it now--you're liberals!
Drawbacks said...
Jon Moss said on a BBC documentary...
He didn't elaborate on the ins and outs of their relationship, though.
Eeew
"On female sexuality and desire, I'm not convinced that women can really be attracted to anyone or have real orgasms either..."
End of Thread.
It's always exciting to see gcochran commenting here - one senses oneself in the presence of genius. And, speaking as a gay man (not proud of it, not ashamed of it, just "born that way"), I think his "pathogen" theory of homosexuality is by far the most plausible currently on offer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran#Pathogenic_theory_of_homosexuality
@Dennis Dale: "born gay" is not a "dogma" - i.e., some bit of nonsense that people pretend to believe in because it's required by some supposedly authoritative ancient text or other - it's the self-reported experience of (not quite, but almost) all gay men.
"...in the coming gay tyranny any high school boy who develops a gay crush will be taught it's all over for him now, vagina-wise..."
Whoah, dude - you've got some very serious personal issues that you need to work through.
." Of course women don't want to miss out on anything, and I'm quite sure they experience deep and meaningful arousal in their own ways. But women are great imitators and appropriators. So when they talk about 'orgasms', I'm not sure we mean the same thing. It's a little like wondering if a cat really sees the colour blue. "
Are you serious? Women can have repeated orgasms, in various parts of the "down there" anatomy. The "G" spot may just be a continuation of the clitoris, but it exists. Now some don't realize their capacity until they try a vibrating massager, but it's there. In fact a guy showed me that.
You're weird. I don't think you know any women, and have the penis focus of a 10 year old.
Vinteuil said,
"It's always exciting to see gcochran commenting here - one senses oneself in the presence of genius. And, speaking as a gay man (not proud of it, not ashamed of it, just "born that way"), I think his "pathogen" theory of homosexuality is by far the most plausible currently on offer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Cochran#Pathogenic_theory_of_homosexuality
"@Dennis Dale: 'born gay' is not a "dogma" - i.e., some bit of nonsense that people pretend to believe in because it's required by some supposedly authoritative ancient text or other - it's the self-reported experience of (not quite, but almost) all gay men."
I take it you are serious about your feeling that gcochran's hypothesis is the most plausible explanation of homosexuals' lack of sexual attraction to women, but I also take it then that your "born that way" means that gay men "feel as if they were born that way" since even Cochran has pointed out that the hypothetical pathogen need not affect only a fetus, but is (hypothetically, of course) just as likely to strike an infant or young child.
"it's the self-reported experience of (not quite, but almost) all gay men."
And straight men too. Rather than born gay, it's simply more probable that young boys don't remember much of their childhood.
"If female desire is non-visual, how come tall men do better than short men"
Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli.
As for your question, how much of the difference in their successes comes from the self-deprecation of men(not long enough!) than women's preferences(as roissy points out about women's long lists).
"Sexuality is rather plastic and able to fixate on anything, if the Internet means anything.
If fetish sites are to be believed, people apparently get off on feet"
Does this plasticity mean that instead of the common denominator of a sexy chick, a burly man arouses the same passions?
"breathing Lisa Simpson- at 10 she even told us (no sh!t!) she had become a Buddhist!"
and then there are 7th graders going to LGBTQAA club meetings.
"Eugene Robinson decides in his late 50's (after fathering children) that he really prefers anal with other elderly men. Seriously? And then these twisted geezers are granted social standing way out of proportion to their biological merit."
I didn't know Robinson is gay. I just know I hate his politics and his whining.
You are getting Eugene Robinson, the straight Washington Post columnist, confused with Gene Robinson, some kind of gay Protestant bishop.
"You are getting Eugene Robinson, the straight Washington Post columnist, confused with Gene Robinson, some kind of gay Protestant bishop."
Back at you. He was an Episcopal which is what they deem reformation yet still more Catholic than Protestant. Hence, those who protest the ordination of gay clergy being welcome back into the Catholic fold.
"Now some don't realize their capacity until they try a vibrating massager, but it's there. In fact a guy showed me that.
You're weird. I don't think you know any women, and have the penis focus of a 10 year old."
I'd ignore the Dude. Giving him further information might lead him to approach a female overconfident that he now knows how to tickle her fancy. The outcome would only be overwhelming annoyance. Don't encourage him to breathe let alone think about sex. ;0)
"Men and women differ in amygdala response to visual sexual stimuli.
As for your question, how much of the difference in their successes comes from the self-deprecation of men(not long enough!) than women's preferences(as roissy points out about women's long lists). "
This, kind of makes me smile. It's how adults lie to kids all the while expecting them to grow out of it when the time comes. But some of those kids can't deal with harsh reality once they grow up, so they continue the lie for themselves. Of course, how you carry yourself, your character and your confidence matter! But, unlike what the grown ups in your life told you to shelter you, your looks matter too. They matter a whole lot. Sure, all your other traits can make your life better, but you will never fully compensate for being butt ugly. And good looks can't compensate for everything, but they can compensate for a whole lot. That's why handsome men don't concern themselves with "game". Yes, I've heard many men say that they have problems with girls, even though they are fairly good looking. Guess what? Usually, neither I nor any of the other women who mentioned it later ever thought that the guy was good looking. That's why roissy has to overcompensate so drastically and still ends up with poor quality pickings. He's average looking, at best. You can't be seriously comparing some woman's silly long list of man specks with a natural biological response! Men and women react differently to visual sexual stimuli because women need the correct setting as well as the correct partner- you know, we got limited resources so things have to be right. That's why erotic literature is popular- it provides an elaborate setting. However, the guy within that setting is of supreme importance. You might have noticed that male romantic leads in movies geared towards women tend to be very handsome. Nature is nature. You or Roissy or whoever else can throw tantrums against it, but you can't change it. No, there is no Santa Clause either. It's okay. Just do the best with what you got.
"Sailer's Law of Female Journalism as applies to "Gamers" has been ably demonstrated."
I stumbled upon "game" last year, and it's creepy just how much their blogs resemble the female Fat Acceptance blogs I came across 10 years ago, and the femenazi self esteem teachings that were supposed to indoctrinate me in school.
Every other female guest speaker or an article in a teen magazine would assure us girls that the boys like girls of all shapes and sizes, as long as she's confident and enjoys life. Don't even attempt to change anything about yourself physically. There's no need! Only defective boys care about that. Boys only THINK that they care about your looks because they've been brainwashed by the media. In reality, all you need to work on is your confidence, and the boys will respond despite what the think they would respond to.
The 20-something, 30-something Fat Acceptance feminist bloggers like to talk about confidence too. AND they love to brag and give examples of how well their confidence works in bars. All you have to do is have or fake high self esteem and go get drunk in a bar. Success with the opposite sex guaranteed. Don't even try to work on your short comings other than that low self esteem! That would be WEAK of you. In fact, you have no short comings. If you think you do, that's just the evil patriarchy brainwashing you. All you need is confidence to attract male attention, and it will be proven to you if you go get drunk with some random men! Any man who might have a different hypothesis as to why you might be able to get laid or why you might not have attracted men at all before you went into the territory of mandatory beer goggles is either a liar or completely brainwashed by the media which is controlled by the patriarchy. Pay no attention to him. The jerk!
Are "game" bloggers and feminazis actually working together? Or is the pathetic, whiny side of human nature so similar in everyone?
It proves that the whole shtick about women preferring guys who work out, have no beer gut and clear skin is total bullshit.
Wait a minute. This-- "guys who work out, have no beer gut and clear skin..." has to be a description of gay men. So yeah, I guess you're right.
This is a gentlemanly thread and the restraint is admirable, but I wouldn't be saying something like "I think this female orgasm business is all a fraud" out loud, like at work or something. You're just asking to become a running joke.
And you agnostics who've yet to see evidence of it should view the female orgasm as Pascal's Wager would have you treat the Almighty. Take the safe bet. Proceed as if it's there.
Cue Waterworld: "dry land exists, I've seen it..."
Now if you want to argue the female orgasm is a troublesome little biological artifact, I'm listening...
Just to throw out something to reaffirm Maya's commentary. I'm no ladies man, far from it. But I went through a particularly dry spell; tried everything, clothes, was aggressively flirtatious, no luck.
Gave up, started running for whatever reason, dropped 30 pounds, had 4 partners within a month, and it didn't stop there. Nothing different in terms of dress or behavior. One girl, had been friends with for 2 years, had flirted a lot, only after the running. I didn't even initiate things.
All that said, game has sort of come onto one truism; women like a pleasant a$$hole. It's no more complicated than that.
All that said, game has sort of come onto one truism; women like a pleasant a$$hole. It's no more complicated than that.
Here's my take on Game: Women like assholes you say. I'll buy that. Now, why would they prefer unattractive, sexually inept assholes?
In case you haven't noticed, there's never a shortage of assholes (Game says we need more).
But the "female orgasm is a myth" assertion makes sense in this light; it's the gamer's "IQ is a myth" myth. It has to end here.
"Anyone can give women orgasms", is the gamer's pre-coital boast; once he's done he dryly declares, with equal insistence:
"Women are incapable of orgasms".
Which is not to confuse Game with the Men's Rights resistance. But then, Game is like Men's Rights' entertaining but unreliable cousin.
gcochran said,
"It's possible that I have a better insight into Mike Bailey's views than most, since A. I've actually read many of his papers, B. we've corresponded for years, and C, he called me last night, and we talked for an hour and a half.
"It is fair to say that he thinks that my hypothesis (homosexuality is caused by some pathogen), although unproven, is the strongest and most plausible
one extant. Mike actually knows that selection is important, more than you can say abut most biologists, medical geneticists, and behavioral geneticists.
"There's news: it looks as if we're going to see a GWAS study of homosexuality. Results are not in yet, but I'm definitely looking forward to it."
---------------------------------
Thought I remembered seeing a video of the lead researcher doing the GWAS to which poster gcochran refers, but can't find it right off. Instead this article will do:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=4529843&page=1#.TyjDyMgsHao
From the article,
"Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist at Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, is currently heading the biggest study ever undertaken on sexual orientation. He's looking at the genetic makeup of more than 700 sets of gay brothers.
'I think the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics,' he said. 'It's probably the single biggest factor that we know about.'"
So I guess Dr. Sanders is one of those behavioral geneticists that insist he's going to find some genes contributing to male homosexuality, something I gather poster Cochran doesn't think will happen.
I think Bailey works with Sanders so I am guessing maybe he already knows not much there?
I don't know. I always chuckle, though, when I hear a geneticist say that genetics in a big factor in something but that it's just one of the factors.
Well, duh, I would think so. Our genome is really a factor in everything, isn't it? Even if I am struck by a cold virus that gets me down for a week, isn't that related to my immune system's resistance or lack of resistance to it and isn't that the result of my genes?
Something tells me that a behavioral geneticist will find SOMETHING "genetic" to pin on this trait, even if there is only a weak correlation of sorts.
Not that I think guys choose to be non-heterosexual. That's absurd.
"I've never understood why some guys claim to be aroused by lesbians"
Not real ones - they mean in porn.
"... if I am struck by a cold virus that gets me down for a week, isn't that related to my immune system's resistance or lack of resistance to it and isn't that the result of my genes?"
No. This is related to your genes for remembering to eat nutritious meals or those for the motivation to find some ColdEase at Walgreens which will boost your worn down immune system that has succumbed to stress and/or poor nutrition.
You people will believe anything, though. I get nervous every time the references to gay-making germs start around here. I guess this virus gives a guy purple, estrogen-averse sperm or makes him believe he has a phantom vagina. This topic always draws comments about absorbed opposite sex twins making gay chimeras and opposite gender patches of flesh. Serves you right for hogging the umbilical cord. The ultra-self aware might even know which part of the body has a separate gender since that part will tingle in response to same sex attraction.
Dale! Stop, please.
Here's a little information that might help resolve this issue for you. Many women on the pill have a reduced sex drive which probably also reduces the likelihood they'll have an orgasm when they get talked into having sex they didn't want to have in the first place.
The sad truth may also be that the optimum hormone balance for getting pregnant and attracting men somewhat inhibits sexual responsiveness. Bummer.
We all might be better off if insecure, asshole types only pursue women 30 and older whose sex drive has finally kicked in and who don't want to procreate or necessarily need a husband. This will keep the losers from annoying chicks who need love, since sex isn't so great for them, while also lowering the number of jerks born each year.
Dude said...
On female sexuality and desire, I'm not convinced that women can really be attracted to anyone or have real orgasms either...
Ma'am, I tip my trollin' hat to ya.
Truth, that's how you do it.
Dennis, I can't argue with your conclusions. I think game is largely a fictional lifeline for evolutionary dead-ends. Maya is right, and my own example bears it up, physical appearance is as important, if not more, than behavior. Get rid of that gut will do more for a guy than any number of axe(tm) products
For most men, behavior can be that little bit of extra help that can seal the deal. Here is where the a$$hole comes in. Women don't like a total jerk, but based on years of observation, candid discussions with women, and self-evaluation about times when I've "bantered" (as they would have it; personally I'd say mildly insulted them and their opinions) with women to their amusement, I've concluded most women like charming brats. The important thing, and this is what game doesn't get, women aren't unaware of the dynamics. With the exception of naive, often younger, but not always, women are pretty savy. But they figure, at least he's interesting. In this regard women aren't too different from men. Can you blame them? Who would want to hang out with a dud, even a noble dud. People (particularly Americans) are very forgiving of insults, provided they are given with a smile. Many men will fawn on a guy who treats 'em in a condescending manner, provided humor is involved.
But without a basic physical level of attraction, wit will do the most gabby player no good. I wouldn't even argue that there are some perfectly normal looking men who have been emasculated for various biographical, not biological reasons. I've had friends, often not very witty or sexually aggressive, who girls told me aroused them without a word and I was continually shocked at the number of times these guys would pass on one night stands that I'd treasure for months.
But, I also wouldn't argue that culture and media plays a role as one sees obese (by any medical definition) black gangsta wannabes at bars and clubs with po' white gals, many times shockingly attractive, hanging around them. With absolutely no rancor, because these guys' success or lack thereof has nothing to do with my own, I have to conclude these Biggie Smalls doppelgangers have to be benefiting from pop culture.
"But, I also wouldn't argue that culture and media plays a role as one sees obese (by any medical definition) black gangsta wannabes at bars and clubs with po' white gals, many times shockingly attractive, hanging around them. With absolutely no rancor, because these guys' success or lack thereof has nothing to do with my own, I have to conclude these Biggie Smalls doppelgangers have to be benefiting from pop culture."
Look, here's my take on that... Culture and media do indeed influence the metrics of attraction, but only those who are seriously defective, in some way, are ultra susceptible. For example, men did begin to prefer much skinnier women in the 90s, but only very few supremely insecure ones began to seek out truly underweight women. An average man's tastes merely shifted towards thinner girls WITHIN the healthy range. We are susceptible to find certain styles of hair and dress more sexy, depending on when and where we came of age. However, only the very flawed among us would choose a naturally repugnant emo (emos were sexy in my middle class suburb :)) over a naturally attractive person without the sex signalling style. Those attractive girls hanging out with the obese, rapper wannabe black guys? I guarantee you that something is wrong with the vast majority of them- not because they are showing attention to a black guy (black men can be attractive, good catches too), but because they treat those guys as props. Do you think they'd be as nice to the obese black guy if he wore a suit and talked like a suburban white guy? No, they probably wouldn't. These women are trying to be the type of women who could date a gangster or a rapper, so they need a look alike for an accessory. Firstly, these types of human beings are extremely immature. People are supposed to grow out of wanting to date an image shortly out of junior high. Perhaps they want to make their fathers angry? Again, they need this prop. And he can't be just some attractive black guy. He needs to be a gang banger. Since the purpose here is to show off an image rather than fulfill a more natural desire, it doesn't matter how attractive he is. Remember the guys in middle school who wanted to date a cheerleader, any cheerleader, just so they could be the type of guys who date cheerleaders? It's like that. Protip- these are the girls (and guys) who are good marks for "game" practitioners. They are likely to be emotionally unstable and mentally dim, but they will be impressed if you present the right persona to them. Most adults are not like that, thank God. But, I guess, they are over represented in bars and clubs.
The "women love assholes" is another phrase that melts my heart because it reminds me of middle school. It's the twin brother of the "men love bitches" truism. Both invoke an image of a young teenager, lamenting the fact that his/her crush is dating that mean person and ignoring the very nice and sensitive him/her. Of course, usually, the asshole/bitch in question is a lot better looking than the angsty teenager contemplating the situation. But nobody wants to notice that! You see, this way, you can conclude that the opposite sex is ignoring you because of your virtues, not your shortcomings. Something is wrong with them, not you!
Sure thing, there are attractive qualities beyond looks- you know the qualities that make someone an attractive friend as well as an attractive lover. Niceness is all well and good, but it's not enough to make people want to be friends with you, even people of your own gender. It's the niceness and sensitivity that kills your chances with BOTH men and women. It's being a dull, socially inept dud. Even kids in 2nd grade would rather play with someone who is funny and interesting, even if that person turns on them regularly. But, really, all things being equal, the vast majority of people don't want to be with the asshole/bitch. It's just that they don't want to sacrifice the beauty of their lover and stimulation of interesting company merely to be with someone nice.
Was Nixon asperger?
"You people will believe anything, though. I get nervous every time the references to gay-making germs start around here."
Ever heard of damage done by germs to some cells, bud? Who knows what will turn out to be the cause of a guy who has a penis and healthy sperm who wishes to put it where it can never make copies of his genes? He might as well put it in a hole in a rock because he doesn't need that sperm where he wants to put it.
Something's gone wrong somewhere and much of the stuff that causes dysfunction in our systems is related to the fact that bugs can evolve to survive every bit as fast or faster than our defenses against them.
I can't see why you seem to think the notion to be silly.
As for the "tingle"? It's good for making babies, partial copies of ourselves, but I get the feeling you don't like "breeders."
Dale! Stop, please.
Shut up, bitch. "Game!"
See kids? Her lady-parts are on fire right now!
Just kidding. I honestly don't see how we're not in complete agreement, ma'am.
@Maya,
"Firstly, these types of human beings are extremely immature. People are supposed to grow out of wanting to date an image shortly out of junior high."
I'm not so sanguine about people's collective maturity. I wouldn't confuse settling for a mate with genuine satisfaction. And wanting a physically attractive mate isn't just about simple sexual desire. I know otherwise savvy, complex single people who still want a trophy wife/husband who conforms to a predetermined "type", usually, but not always an athletic world traveler/ intelligent tomboy. I have friends who have lists with more than 20 necessary traits, I kid you not. And these aren't sexless dreamers, these guys are "pleasant a$$holes" (tm).
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss those girls hanging out with said Biggie Smalls doppelgangers. They may very well be using them in a calculating manner, as you say it's the image not the actual person. I can't imagine physical attraction plays a role, because the guys were often so fat. Which raises another question, are these guys truly just warm props, who getting nothing more after closing time? That would be harsh.
But as so much of culture is dictated by prestige, I can't see the girls' behavior as particularly egregious or indicative of something profoundly wrong in terms of psychology.
On getting back at daddy, maybe dating black guys was a form of rebellion for Gen Xers, but not for most Millennials, maybe some immigrants excepted- honor killings and whatnot. I'm old enough to remember such rebellious imperatives amongst my contemporaries: "I've got a black boyfriend. BTW, did I mention he's black? Wait, I was sure to tell you he was black? He and I just went to see the new Spike Lee movie, people are so ignorant." For some of these girls it was just as callously prestige getting as their younger contemporaries. But I kind of suspect the guys involved could care less.
"Of course, usually, the asshole/bitch in question is a lot better looking than the angsty teenager contemplating the situation. But nobody wants to notice that!"
This is true, but the insurmountable reality is just too much for people. "Game" is another form of misplaced optimism, a gnostic system of getting gals where men can change their status; achieve salvation by being privy to forms of knowledge the bodhisattvas of the frustrated, in their mercy, are willing to dispense.
>Isn't it funny how gays have this almost Stalinist reflex to "out" any behavior that will make someone [be regarded as homosexual] who can no longer defend himself?<
About 20 years ago, there was a line of classical music CDs called "Gay Classics," with hunks on the covers. Schumann and Chopin and Brahms and other composers of the classical music canon were identified as gay - because they wrote classical music. (Also, much play was given, if I remember correctly, to the damning fact that Chopin had an affair with GEORGE Sand.)
Weirdly, I didn't see a Tchaikovsky CD in the "Gay Classics" line (maybe I missed it). He was very likely an actual homosexual, with testimony from contemporaries about it. Unlike Chop, Schum, Brahms et al (the first two have been speculatively conjectured, over a hundred years after their deaths, to have engaged in unprovable homosexual love affairs with other people... the wistful conjecturers are, you guessed it, poofs).
Now Julius Caesar - HE was as queer as a 3 dollar bill, of course. As were Lincoln, Aristotle, Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, MLK, Bobby Kennedy, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Newton, Darwin, Blake, Milton, Shakespeare, Plato, Churchill, and anybody else you read about in your high school history book. (joke)
>I expect there's a casting couch element as well what with all those goodlooking and desperate to succeed teenagers.<
Lou Pearlman
"You people will believe anything, though. I get nervous every time the references to gay-making germs start around here."
Gives you the vapors, does it?
In tropical environments where females could provide food for themselves and their children males evolved to compete with each other through violence or showing off.
Females evolved to like attention.
Once outside those environments males needed to provide the food. So males in those environments evolved provider traits over the top of the violence and showing off traits.
Females developed traits that looked for a good provider over the top of just liking attention - but liking attention didn't go away.
The strong, silent and largely inattentive provider males built cool civilizations but
- the political and business elite rigged the game in their favor, increased their wealth through the stratosphere and consequently are hogging too many females at the top end
- welfare combined with males who never left the showing off and violence phase are taking extra females at the bottom end who like the attentiveness - even if it only lasts until they drop a kid
So the taciturn (male definition) aka inattentive (female definition) provider males are stuffed and have three choices
- de-evolve to the point where they suit the 3rd world future the elites have in mind for 90% of the population
- become part of the elite
- organize collectively to change the rules back in their favor
Post a Comment