I wonder if this would work in reverse, and if it did, whether we could use it on Andrew Sullivan.

Not that there's anything wrong with him being gay, of course. It'd just be nice to SHUT HIM THE HELL UP ABOUT IT for once.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

In twin studies (which sort of test the immutability of a given hypothetically rock-solid genetic predestination), both twins are gay about 38% of the time. Which potentially argues both in favor of and against a genetic component (depending on your ideolgical bent); in my judgment, a genetic predisposition, a genetic groundwork.

Which in congrunece with an environmental co-facor (like the theory mentioned above - the presence of one or more older siblings), would make a whole lotta sense.

Yes, that's what I think. Some number of people have a receptor for sexuality-switch, and in some of those cases it's switched, in others it's not.

I've heard about the older brother = more likely to be homosexual thing, but never in the context of post-womb exposure to pheromones.

I really doubt nature leaves primary sexual orientation that 'up for grabs' so late in the game.

Anyway, I thought the story on that older brother stuff was that it is believed to be a reaction in the mothers immune defense system to male genetics inside her. That, as the number of previous male occupants of her womb increases, the greater the likelihood of the immune system reacting negatively to a new male.

And it's this immune reaction during gestation that somehow masks the proper masculinizing male hormones from washing over the new male baby's developing brain, switching it from teh default 'like hard male bodies" to "likes tits and ass."

A lot of stuff can be traced to diseases suffered by the mother, or reactions by her immune system while the child was gestating. I remember in Ridley's 'Agile Gene' reading that a women who suffers influenza in the 21st(?) week of trimester is like 7 times more likely to give birth to someone who will later go on to suffer schizophrenia.

That's what I've read on that subjet anyway.

..^

All the comments are very interesting.

So what accounts for the proclivity towards interior decorating?

Yeah, well Dennis Finch, or more accurately his writers, stole that line from me. And it's an immutable law of the universe. Thank God.

Dr. Symes,

Thanks, I've edited to reflect that. I read the thing last night. Sorry for the loose shit.

Reo Symes -

Anyway, I thought the story on that older brother stuff was that it is believed to be a reaction in the mothers immune defense system to male genetics inside her. That, as the number of previous male occupants of her womb increases, the greater the likelihood of the immune system reacting negatively to a new male.

I don't think this is a bad theory, but it's still a theory. There are other theories that rely (with some inferential data) on the possibility that the vital "gay switch" is thrown after the kid is actually born and before or around puberty. Still a bit up in the air. What seems rather evident (to me, anyway), no matter what the precise cause, is that a certain percentage of homosexuality is essentially predetermined, via a combo of genetic predispostion and environmental factors, be it antibodies in the womb or postnatal exposure to something.

Which potentially argues both in favor of and against a genetic component (depending on your ideolgical bent); in my judgment, a genetic predisposition, a genetic groundwork.

Which in congruence with an environmental co-facor (like the theory mentioned above - the presence of one or more older siblings), would make a whole lotta sense.

I think this is exactly right. But the thing that scientists seem to be recognizing now is that the 'environment' that's a factor is not the "post womb" environment, but the gestational environment.

Or, that the reason people are gay, or any trait for that matter, is because their particular individual gene sets are susceptible to and inflluenced by particularized differences int eh womb, differences that may even be small, but make a huge difference in brain developement, especially during the stages when neurons are sprouting at 100,000 a second and migrating in mass to their proper places.

In short, identical twins are very alike, but still have differences. Those similarities are gene based, but the differences aren't POST gestation environement differences, but rather micro differences in the womb (one hogged more nutrients than the other during brain growth stage, one affected by mothers influencza, the other not...)

Finally, the biggest difference between identical twins may simply be the random chaos inherent in any massively, multiply billion neuroned growing system.

E.g. - look at the back of your left versus your right hands, the blue veins traced there. They are very different trees, very different vein patterns. That is, the left is not a mirror opposite of the right.

The strange thing is, there is only one gene that controls vein growth, the same code book controills the left hand as well as the right.

Though controlled by the same genetics, the reason you have different vein patterns isn't because of POST BIRTH environmental differences (e.g. your mother yelled at your left hand hand or loved your right more growing up or that your right hand went to the better school) but because the gene codes only the general direction and path but the vast comlexity of any organizm during its gestational developement necessarily entails some chaos, randomenss. The same applies to any trait.

[ Long pedantic edit to complete my analogy: Now imagine, like the veins of your hands, all the neurons strechign out, and wiring themslves up in your brain. You have 100 billion neurons. And, jaw droppingly, 100 Trillion synaptic connections between those neurons. (Perspective:400 billion stars in the entire universe)

Our genes can control a lot of that brain wiring, but with any system that big, outside influence while it is going on, can have a big effect. Moreover, like the back of you hand, even though geneticaly controlled, just dumb random chance plays a huge role wirign up that system.

And there you have the reason people are the way they are in my opinion. Genes, natal environment, chance.

Post birth Environement? Your mama yelled at you on the potty one day? Read the first half of 'The Nurture Assumption' by Judith Rich Harris, and marvel at Social Science's 50 years of complete failure in explaining how identical twins raised together are no more alike than identical twins raised apart.

More and more, it looks like you were on your way to being who you are, since before you were born. ]

Genes can only control so much. The rest is environement, but not as much as we used to think is controlled by the "POST BIRTH' environment.

Sorry for going long here.

(not just commenting on the specific story, btw. the older brother/next born "immune reaction" theory has actually been around for years, also btw)

"The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. "

Okay, it seems normal that gay men and straight women would be turned on by male sweat.

But ... female *urine?* Who'd they run these tests on - Chuck Berry?

Ace, there's no need to justify your feelings of homosexuality when you're around Dick Cheney. It's not pheremones.

That's just the power of Dick Cheney.

And Symes - totally endorse what you are saying. Though I would necessarily caveat, when looking for causes, it is still possible that gayness could materialize via post-natal factors. Again, I have no personal theoretical predisposition either way, and still up in the air.

Yes... there are actually four types of male sexuality:

Straight

Gay

Bisexual

"Cheney-Gay," which is basically just being straight, but having been exposed to the powerful hypersexual pheremones of the Vice President.

Though I would necessarily caveat, when looking for causes, it is still possible that gayness could materialize via post-natal factors.

I think we're on the same page. My take on it though is that it is set in the womb and that nature'd be a fool to leave something so central to reproductive fitness to be set willy nilly by post birth environment. Just strange. Could be wrong though.

As a separate note, what I'M interesting in is whether 'Homophobia" has a genetic basis as well.

Think about it. The dad who had the gay son and didn't CARE that his son was gay had his genes die out because his son didn't reproduce.

That dad who did had a gay son BUT was so fucking pissed off a 'teh gays' as to scare the gay son into acting straight, marrying and having the family for fear of Dad's (and society's) punishment (ala McGreavy), was more likely to have his genes carried on. ...

That should be an interesting addition to the debate if true.

Yes, but note that fruit-flies can be induced to lesbianism by post-natal exposure to hormones.

And, again, there are those fish who become gay (post-natal) or even female (I think they actually acquire female physical sex characteristics) based on post-natal hormonal stimulation.

I've got to look that fish-thing up. I keep citing it from memory, which is, yeah, pretty amateurish.

Excellent.

I need to bookmark that article and print it out whenever I run into a gal resitant to a little juicy three-way action.

"See, sweetie, it's natural to want to experiment with another gal.... here, let me top off that Cosmo for you."

The next hurdle: how to get past the excuse "well, a three way would make me jealous, I don't want to share you" line of BS they put up. A skillful defense quite difficult to get around...

Men around the world, however, have just been given hope beyond hope.

Yes, but note that fruit-flies can be induced to lesbianism by post-natal exposure to hormones.

And, again, there are those fish who become gay (post-natal) or even female (I think they actually acquire female physical sex characteristics) based on post-natal hormonal stimulation.

Two things.

One, that doesn't mean that underlying 'gay/straight circuitry' set at birth doesn't still control.

eg.- timidity. A cool daddy in the clutch, may well have that cool daddiness because of some circuitry, but if scientists injected him with adrenaline or some other 'scaredy cat' hormone in a situation he may bvery well express 'fear/timidity/anti-cool daddyness'

What I'm saying is that hormones may well affect 'gayness' but those hormonse regularly in our body are the result of genes/natal environ and not normally changed (outisdde of scientists experiments) in the real world. Ie Hormones are the normal, set vehicle for sexual preference.

Also, I wonder about those studies. We can obersve herterosexualmen having sex with men in prison, the navy, during one of ace's 'why fight it any longer' backrubs, but that doesn't mean they're really gay does it?

Can we distinguish this difernce in fish?

Though, on the other hand, perhaps women in prison, normally straight, are reacting to an excess of female pheromones in thier environment?

Interesting.

We can obersve herterosexualmen having sex with men in prison, the navy, during one of ace's 'why fight it any longer' backrubs, but that doesn't mean they're really gay does it?

Ummm... yes.

The shawshank redemption story noted that a lot of guys in prison said they were straight when they came out, but "not quite as straight as they'd been."

There are probably (almost certainly) four factors: genetic, internatal hormones, and post-natal hormoes/pheremones, plus actual upbringing/life events.

Genetics determine propensity for gayness, and, internatal hormoes are the biggest actual cause, but that doesn't mean that post-natal hormonal signals don't play any role. In an extremely unisex environment -- prison, Navy, British boarding school (sigh... if only)-- an abundance of postnatal hormones may trigger homosexual desires. This would be a minor cause, but it could still be a cause.

Last on the list is upbringing/life events. I've asked gay guys about this, and none of them have ever said there was some event that made them gay. The old "molestation leads to homosexuality" thing is almost certainly entirely wrong. Although, I suppose, if one were so traumatized by molestation one began to obsess over it it could lead to homosexual desires.

Boys born with many older brothers in the family have a much higher chance of becoming gay.

Ace, didn't you say you had a couple of brothers?

. . . whereas almost all women are.

Oh, give me a fk'n break!

And last but not least, did you ever share a bed with Dr. Reo Symes? And in the alternative, Dr. Reo Symes, did you ever share a bed with Ace?

Ace, didn't you say you had a couple of brothers?

I actually didn' (did I?), but, if I did, I'm the oldest. I got all the butch hormones. I absorbed so much man-hormone I totally fairied them up.

And last but not least, did you ever share a bed with Dr. Reo Symes? And in the alternative, Dr. Reo Symes, did you ever share a bed with Ace?

I'll say this, then I'd like to see the matter dropped. One night of 'gay for pay' doesn't make you homo.

And this. Should your service ever send you to a certain NY webmasters studio apt., get teh $ upfront and make sure he understands World of WarCraft platinum pieces are not negotiable tender in the service industry.

I actually didn' (did I?), but, if I did, I'm the oldest.

Well, yeah, you did.

make sure he understands World of WarCraft platinum pieces are not negotiable tender in the service industry.

lol!

Well, I wasn't challenging the manhood of either of you. However, I long suspected a familial relationship between you two and was trying to not so cleverly ferret it out.

I think we're on the same page. My take on it though is that it is set in the womb and that nature'd be a fool to leave something so central to reproductive fitness to be set willy nilly by post birth environment. Just strange. Could be wrong though.

Reo -

As much of a fan of evolution as I may be, not everything - even chronically - takes place due to a utilitarian darwinistic purpose.

Let me give you one potential "post-natal" factor: estrogen-like compounds are found in many modern ingestibles, and are thought to be directly responsible for earlier and earlier puberties in young girls. What if some of these compounds, in concert with a predispostion, have an impact on males that flips a switch? Again, this is just a shot in the dark with no data backing - and certainly wouldn't account for gayness throughout preindustrial history - but it's an illustrative example of post-natal influences in our environment that could have an impact, without strict utilitarian evolutionary purpose.

This is quite fascinating, indeed! I have nothing else to add.

As much of a fan of evolution as I may be, not everything - even chronically - takes place due to a utilitarian darwinistic purpose.
Oh, absolutely. But nature would be immensely careless to leave something so central to environmental chance, to leave a switch lying around so easily flipped by careless 'ol post birth environment.

Think about the reproductive fitness of being gay. If you're gay, your genes die. Don't reach the next generation the same as a fatal childhood cancer, prepubescent fatal heart conditions.. etc. Genetically speaking, gayness is super-super bad.

(Ok maybe not that bad. I rember reading some study over at Gene Expression that said it had the same fitness impact of Dwarfism. Something like 1/5 as likely to pass your genes on as the rest in the mating pool)

Also, look we seem to be finding evolutionary reasons behind the normal male/female body morphism heterosexual attractors. For the evolutionary reason men like big tits, see my post here (also an interesting note there on males' female face selection)

To be clear, I certainly don't believe that gayness is necessarily the result of a gay 'gene' but I do believe that gayness is the result of something interferring (another gene gene, natal hormone dysfunction) with the proper gene expression of heterosexuality, which is genetically based.

That said, still just my working assumption. Greg Cochran's always talking about some middle belt of Africa where homosexuality doesn't exist. So it may well be some environmental factor at play through the rest of the world. Just note the recurrence of homosexuality in other species though, and how that enviromental factor would have to be pretty broad to play into all those species.

With regard to Africa or elsewhere - would it not be quite difficult to get any accurate numbers with regard to how many homosexual men and women there may be if only because there is little awareness of what it is and the presence of an environment where identifying oneself as homosexual is strongly discouraged? People may be, perhaps, genetically homosexual or predisposed to it but may either not know it, deny it, ignore it, or not understand it. Quite different from the West.

As far as evolution is concerned, could homosexuality not have an evolutionary use? Does the rate of homosexuality vary based on population numbers or density? Perhaps it is a Malthusian factor instituted to help perpetuate the human race by preventing overbreeding. I don't even know if Malthusianism is correct, for the record; just throwing out ideas.

With regard to Africa or elsewhere... Quite different from the West.

Yeah, that's my inital suspicion too. That the guy who comes out of the closet over there gets a spear in the face two seconds later.

But Cochran talks about how there's a narrow band there that doesn't even belive homosexuality exists. That it's some sort of joke the researchers are making up.

Cochran ties this particular band into his 'Germ Theory" of homosexuality (he had an Atlantic piece on it, but it's unlinkable.) how this band of non-homosexuality also has a different resistence to sickle cell anemia/malaria too. (I may be getting that wrong. Frankly, I'm not entirely up on his theory, theugh he makes good sense for the "Germ" thing every time I come away.)

As for gayness' evolutionary adaptive purpose, i can oly say a lot of people ahve tried to come up with one - eg, no spouse so tends for infant neices/nephews thus increasing his/her shared genes existence in next generation - but that's pretty 'just so' and tenuous.

I get the impression people trying to play that angle are sorta mocked by the more sciency guys doing the research. That they're sorta now embarassed at the threadbareness of their own (sometimes former) theories/positions and aren't so quick to put them forward anymore. Stuff like 'Germ Theory', even if wrong, just sounds so much more 'hard sciencey.'

Thanks, Doc!

I do suppose the evolutionary justification bit sounds more normative/philosophical than scientific. (How can an experiment be done? Create a new earth?) I do admit it won't change anything, though. Still doesn't explain how it occurs.

Germ theory . . . so, people can catch the gay? (Just kidding, although the idea is interesting.)

Knemon, regarding the female urine thing:

I remember that one of the flashpoints of soccer hooliganism, where these mass-brawls would break out in the stands, was when men would start to urinate behind the stands.

In tests they found that the scent of male urine promotes a feeling of anger /violent aggression in men, but female urine was calming or it didn't affect the men at all.

A territorial thing? Chemistry lending the ability to distinguish a threat from a non-threat? The reason my husband bottles my urine and uses it as aftershave?

Your nose knows the difference, somehow.

But nature would be immensely careless to ...

Nature is, by "nature," nothing if not immensely careless.

Think about the reproductive fitness of being gay. If you're gay, your genes die. Don't reach the next generation the same as a fatal childhood cancer, prepubescent fatal heart conditions.. etc. Genetically speaking, gayness is super-super bad.

but again - there are BAZILLION-JILLIONS of environmental factors - for example, viruses that impact significantly on an organism but don't kill or impact outwardly determinable reproductive viability one way or the other - that continue to flourish and flout utilitarian determination for the host species.

We're just a set of random instructions, and some post-natal factors and switches might just point to G-A-Y.

For example: ask Ace about how his pre-tween nethers tingled like lightning upon first sight of a shirtless Rick Springfield poster in his cousin Jenny's bedroom. Go ahead. ASK HIM.

CAT urine, on the other hand ...

Maybe the younger sons in a family with numerous sons has had to endure homosexual play from his older brothers - thus, the tendency towards homosexuality when they are adults.

We're just a set of random instructions, and some post-natal factors and switches might just point to G-A-Y.

A 1000+ posts on Dick Cheney's penis sure points to G-A-Y.

Maybe the younger sons in a family with numerous sons has had to endure homosexual play from his older brothers - thus, the tendency towards homosexuality when they are adults.

Pat, Ace is an older brother.

I don't know. It all smells queer to me.

but again - there are BAZILLION-JILLIONS of environmental factors - for example, viruses that impact significantly on an organism but don't kill or impact outwardly determinable reproductive viability one way or the other

Yeah, I gotcha. And again, I'm not coming at this from the angle of 'gay gene.' My suspician, is that, much like some believe Schizo to be, it's a matter of certain 'gene sets' in combination with certain gestational insults.

I don't think either one of us is saying that there isn't a default setting of 'heterosexual' that is genetically fixed prior to birth (I'm not, and, I think, you're not.) What we're arguing is when does that setting get changed.

Is it post birth, or pre-birth (to include an absence of proper masculinizing hormones pre-birth).

Again, it could be post birth as you seem to stress. I really doubt it for the 'impact reasons' I already stated. Remember, it isn't just polio or something thet'd be bad, it's near reproductive death - but we've hashed that.

Also, if someone is going along on the heterosexual rails post birth, when does this homosexualing germ/"environment" cue occur?

It never seems to happen post puberty. Has there ever been a male who's gone gay post pubescence, who really liked the opposite sex before? Who, one day, woke up and really said "I changed my mind, I really liked girls before, but whoa, now I like boys?" Anecdote sure, but I haven't heard that story.

Also, the derailment 'event' under your hypothesis must happen pretty early.

How early? Sorry, I can't link to any articles, but I've read that very, very young children are already showing affinities for the opposite sex, although not sexualized in nature.

Moreover, homosexual boys tending to play with more girlie stuff - that parents DO really know.

Anecdotally too, personally, I knew I wanted girls long before I had any idea what to do with them. (Age twenty-never) They made me feel 'funny' in like kindergarten. Went thumbing through Dad's hidden Playboy's not long after.

So then, if you're positing there is a heterosexual bound train post birth that jumps tracks to head to gaytown, that swithc must be really, really early.

Seems there are just fewer moving parts in a theory that has the gaytown/straightown tracks laid down when the brain is doing the rest of its wiring pre-birth. And again, would nature leave something so vital to gene survival so susceptible to environmental whim such that near reprodcutive death would occur at something like a 2% level.

Again, my mind ain't made up, and I'll listen to reason, but I think, at this stage, the other side's got the burden of proof.

Anecdotally too, personally, I knew I wanted girls long before I had any idea what to do with them.

What? You just thought you would collect them?

Again, my mind ain't made up, and I'll listen to reason, but I think, at this stage, the other side's got the burden of proof.

Agreed. But ...

Has there ever been a male who's gone gay post pubescence, who really liked the opposite sex before? Who, one day, woke up and really said "I changed my mind, I really liked girls before, but whoa, now I like boys?"

Again, ask Ace about that Rick Sprinfield poster.

sweet sweet porn. Is there anything it can't do?

estrogen-like compounds are found in many modern ingestibles, and are thought to be directly responsible for earlier and earlier puberties in young girls. What if some of these compounds, in concert with a predispostion, have an impact on males that flips a switch?

I dunno, but for a shot in the dark theory, it seems pretty logical to me. It's a fact that pubescence comes earlier to girls now than it did years ago. So WHATEVER causes it would be worth further investigation.

It leads to the question about certain cultures where girls have hit puberty earlier than in the western world for a LONG time; do they have a higher preponderance--or lower?--of homosexuality? What about that part of Africa? Do girls mature earlier? (My bet is they do, in general.)

2. Not only is bisexuality real in women, but in fact almost all women are aroused by depictions of both straight and gay sex.

I don't buy that nonsense at all. Sounds like nothing but male fantasy "backed up" by inconclusive--if not bogus--findings. It might not be the SAME thing, but similarly, I could say "men slap each other on the ass" (football games, whatever); therefore, they all have homosexual tendencies. Which is, of course, nonsense. And need I mention that pretty damn near all (if not all) men are aroused by pr0n that would obviously show male sexuality as part of it? Is the fact that men enjoy pr0n indicative of male homosexuality? I'd be willing to bet there are plenty of straight men who are at least a little aroused by the sight of getting head.

Hate to burst your bubbles, guys. ;-)

As an alternative theory, check out Body fat's role in pubery onset. Puberty may be hitting Western Cultures earlier cause were getting so fat.

Abstract link here

What is really exciting about this story, is that civilization could rid itself of homosexuality within a single generation with gene and pheremone therapy!

Mam, tests show your son is going to be gay if we don't fix it. Here's an injection, and now take these pills for a month...

"All chicks are just three cocktails away from some hot girl-on-girl action"

Yeah.....right

Signed,

Very Frustrated 'n Lonely Conservative Lesbian

I'd like to point out that not everything someone does is based on their genetics. Sometimes people just choose to do things.
As far as pheremones go, it's proven that girls raised in households with males not biologically related to them go through puberty earlier, possibly due to pheremones.
This also is a demonstration that chemicals controls things that we don't choose. You can't choose when to go through puberty.

Maybe the younger sons in a family with numerous sons has had to endure homosexual play from his older brothers

Or maybe he gets less attention from his father resulting in anger, bitterness and a need to shame him in revenge. Bart?

Plausible.

It's funny how you guys will refer to studies showing some sort of correlation between siblings, but ignore the most obvious and most common link for homosexuality -- childhood trauma.

That's a myth, Bart. I'm not an expert, but I've never heard a gay guy say they were gay due to a "trauma."

What the hell kind of trauma would that be, exactly, to change your sexual orientation? Men have been raped; they generally don't go gay.

I think you're basing this on 100+ years of homosexuality being diagnosed as a mental disorder and therefore, the shrinks thought, there must have been some psychic trauma to cause the "disease." And knowing their conclusion from the beginning (some psychosexual trauma caused the gayness), they keep asking questions until a gay guy says, "Well, yes, I did walk in on my older sister having sex with her boyfriend when I was eight," and the shrink goes "Aha! There you go! Psychic trauma caused your homosexuality!"

I've always thought that was pretty silly, myself.

Think about it, Bart. (Asking rhetorically:) How horny are you? How horny have you been since seven years old, when (as Bill said) you didn't know what the hell you would do with a girl, but you knew you wanted to do *something* with them?

Gays have that exact same drive, except directed towards men. (I speak here of men. I don't know what the hell is going on with women.) How can that sort of powerful drive to couple, that kind of attraction that used to make you think your head explode in eighth grade, be caused by walking in your parents having sex? Or even being groped by an older uncle?

I'm not trying to wave my Confirmed Straight Membership Badge around, but I simply cannot fathom that, horny bastard that I am, that even a violation by a man suffered as a kid would make me say, "Wow. All those girls who seemed so ineffably delicious yet unobtainable to me now seem... like friends. I think I'm more interested in guys all of a sudden."

And I don't mean to play this card-- I hate when left-wing gays do it to me -- but I don't get this whole "choice" canard. I don't have a choice. I couldn't achieve an erection with a man even if I tried (well, unless he was going to buy my screenplay; then maybe I could rustle up a few go-to stroke fantasies and see what happened).

Why do people think that gays have a choice in the matter? Yes, they could choose to be celibate, as any straight man could, but that's kind of a hard choice. They can't choose to be attracted to women. If they could choose, why wouldn't they choose to be with women and avoid a lot of "psychic trauma" associated with being a disfavored minority?

I mean, yeah, gay guys can sleep with women, but, AFAIK, they're never really as thrilled with the prospect as you and I would be, and they'd alway rather be with a man.

Anecdotal, yes, but a close friend of mine never had a "trauma." He just always liked boys. Always, from the time he had any sort of sexual or romantic thoughts.

(And, uhhhh, he's late in the birth order of a big, big family.)

I wouldn't totally discount Bart's argument. Maybe some men are gay due to sexual abuse when children. I've known more than a few kids who were physically abused by adult males or older boys. They then went on to have sex with other younger boys and got their little asses busted. Are they gay? I don't know. Were they already gay before the abuse? They why were there so many males fucking each other in the same family? They were certainly having sex with lots of other males. Isn't there some correlation between some sort of trauma so to speak when young and fetishes?

And Ace, when did you become the spokesman for gay sex?

"All chicks are just three cocktails away from some hot girl-on-girl action"

I think the "all" is a little much but their is a case for "Instant Lesbians"...... Just add alcohol.

2. Not only is bisexuality real in women, but in fact almost all women are aroused by depictions of both straight and gay sex.

I don't buy that nonsense at all. Sounds like nothing but male fantasy "backed up" by inconclusive--if not bogus--findings.

here's a cite:

The Northwestern researchers measured the psychological and physiological sexual arousal in homosexual and heterosexual men and women as they watched erotic films. There were three types of erotic films: those featuring only men, those featuring only women and those featuring male and female couples. As with previous research, the researchers found that men responded consistent with their sexual orientations. In contrast, both homosexual and heterosexual women showed a bisexual pattern of psychological as well as genital arousal. That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, even though they prefer having sex with men rather than women.

"In fact, the large majority of women in contemporary Western societies have sex exclusively with men," said Meredith Chivers, a Ph.D. candidate in clinical psychology at Northwestern University, a psychology intern at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health and the study's first author. "But I have long suspected that women's sexuality is very different from men's, and this study scientifically demonstrates one way this is so."

Apparently solid methodology, check. Objective measures, check. What this infers is that women have a bisexual arousal pattern, or more specifically, that women are more easily aroused by just sex, the idea of it in varying forms. Not that all or most women actually have to define themselves as "bisexual." (though they are apparently more receptive to the idea - the three cocktail rule has some merit)

That being said, I'm relatively certain that Beth is a stark-raving lesbian just waiting to burst out of her pink cocoon and spread her flannel wings.

"civilization could rid itself of homosexuality"

I dunno. Life would be pretty boring without it.

Lots of art, philosophy, whatnot, wouldn't have been produced or would have come out pretty different.

Plato
Horace
Michelangelo
Nietzsche (come on, you know what's up with him)
Wilde

That's just for starters. (Plus, without homosexuals to kick around, what would paleocons have to bitch about?)

*

As for the trauma thing, Bart, do you have any evidence for it being the "most common" link? Because I know plenty o' gay men who have no such history, and a few straight men who *do.*

That is, heterosexual women were just as sexually aroused by watching female stimuli as by watching male stimuli, . . ..

It's not arousal – it's fk'n embarrassment.

I got stuck at the libertarian=liberal statement and couldn't move past it. Even if you despise both of them, they aren't even close to the same thing, unless you're talking some old-school European definition of liberalism.

I used to do hair 'n makeup at a drag show (no kiddin' ya here), and WOAH were there some psychiatric things going on in that cohort. Many had abusive dads or alcoholic dads or parents that left them home all day and all night. And queens are willing to talk about all this stuff while fitting their bras and fixin' their hair, so I asked.

No, I'm not a gay man, Ace, my roommate was a drag queen, so I volunteered, K? K.

In short, I think the whole homosexual MALE and childhood trauma thing has some merit. I'm not so sure on the lesbo-trauma correlation. It would, of course, be a correlation and not a causation. Of course, a survey of gay and straight males would be all it would take to see if there was a statistically significant correlation between childhood trauma and gaiety.

As for the hot 'n bothered girl on girl action, totally with the researchers on that one. ROWR.

S. Weasel,

The connection I was trying to make was this:

Just like Bill Maher used to claim to be "libertarian" despite obviously being stone-cold liberal, a lot of gay men claim to be bisexual despite having virtually no attraction to women.

I'm not saying they're the same.

That being said, I'm relatively certain that Beth is a stark-raving lesbian just waiting to burst out of her pink cocoon and spread her flannel wings.

Interesting. Beth calls an argument nonsense, your response is to insult her as a moonbat would, by hypocritically labeling her as gay. If there's nothing wrong with being gay, why hurl it as an accusation?

E:IWBSNI

On topic:

Sexual desire itself (the urge to mate) is inborn, sexual proclivities are not. Proclivities are imprinted.
If one simply thinks of prevalent sexual fetishes (e.g., feet/shoes, pantyhose/stockings, sadism, or bondage) it is logical that almost none of them could have been formed in utero.
Also, sexual behaviors during unusual situations, such as imprisonment, are more influenced by desire and opportunity than proclivity. "The girls get better looking at closing time," so the song goes.

And these are just human examples. In the animal kingdom, one can observe very unusual sexual behaviors that cannot be explained by genetic or inborn traits but can be explained by opportunity and the intensity of mating instinct, such as houseflies that attempt to mate with ink dots on paper, or a dog that humps legs and inanimate objects.

Finally, I don't feel we should go down the road of accepting certain behaviors in humans just because they are observed in animals. That opens up several Sam's Club sized cans of worms. We should judge a behavior on its merits for human societies, not whether or not its "natural."

Okay, I guess you have some anecdotal evidence.

But then, really, an awful lot of straight people had abusive or alcoholic dads, too.

I'm not sure that creates anything but damaged, scarred people.

If you go backstage at a strip bar, I'm sure you'll find a lot of straight female strippers with the same sort of stories.

If we're trading anecdotes, I know two women who suffered some sexual abuse as children, and neither turned gay. The abuse may have affected them in other ways, but it didn't flip their orientation.

Just guessing: abuse may make you more sexually open or aggressive, or it may cause you to be withdrawn from sexual relations, or it may have no obvious long-term effect on actual behavior. I fjust find it hard to imagine it would actually change something so fundamental as the object of your sexual desires.

And... okay, not to trade in stereotypes, but I followed a Wonkette link to a gay site where the guy was snarking on this magazine's establishment of a column for gay men to bitch in, observing that until now, gay men had been very reticent and stoic about talking about their pain. (Hey, a gay guy was saying this.)

Your drag queens may also have been drama queens, I'm saying. If you heard more horrible stories there, maybe it's just because they liked telling horrible stories about themselves more than other people.

Also, sexual behaviors during unusual situations, such as imprisonment, are more influenced by desire and opportunity than proclivity. "The girls get better looking at closing time," so the song goes.

The girls do, Sue, but the guys don't. At least not to me.

I've never been in prison, but I've gone without sex for a long time. What a shock, huh? The guy posting about D&D three times a week has had long dry spells.

I've never considered the possibility of a guy being a suitable replacement for a chick for sex. True, I had porn and my own, ahem, devices, but I never considered genetalia to be a fungible commodity.

So why do so many prisoners suddenly just want to have sex with guys rather than beat off? Not to be crude, but if you can't have the real thing, why is a dude to be preferred to masturbation?

I know a lot of prisoners have the so-called "supermale" genetic anomaly (they have two Y chromosomes). Maybe "supermales" pretty much will just fuck anything that moves.

But that's a very, very rare defect, and can't possibly explain all the man on man action that goes on in prison.

But neither can desperation for female companionship.

Adolescence is a long period of peak sexual longings combined with (for most) zero actual sex. Worse than prison in that regard. And yet I've heard few stories where two straight guys just decided to do stuff to each other.

Oh: While I acknowlege there may be cases where abuse actually *does* change one's sexual orientation, I think this is rare, and a true case of homosexuality-as-mental-disorder. The trauma is so powerful and so scarring that the victim obsesses over it and then seeks gay sex.

But again, I think this is rare, and is being offered as a general cause when in fact its responsible for no more than a couple of percentage points of the gay population.

And Ace, when did you become the spokesman for gay sex?

They just sort of elected me. Why, I have no idea.

And yet I've heard few stories where two straight guys just decided to do stuff to each other.

Because when two guys decide to do stuff to each other, then they're not straight. "Straight" is defined as being heterosexual. If two guys do homosexual things to each other, then by definition they're no longer straight. That is a form of circular argument.

There maybe a number of different factors that cause someone to be oriented one way or another. Sexual abuse at what age and what type of abuse is one factor I can think of. Would you not say environmental factors can lead to gender confusion? And wouldn't gender confusion lead to the possibility of homosexuality? And yes, a confused person may still be attracted to women, but if they are boinking men right and left, they are strictly gay to me. How do you explain fetishes? I have heard that they are caused by some incident in childhood that causes some act to be wired/associated with sex. I've stomped on many a balloon in my childhood, but I don't need to do so as an adult in order to get off, while some people do. How are fetishes and homosexuality different?

And don't think I didn't catch your insinuation that you have anecdotal stories about being backstage in a strip bar. Nobody is buying that one. lol!

So what is your theory on why so many prisoners have gay sex in prison? Once again, I believe there are multiple factors in play. I think after a while masturbation just doesn't do it. I think a lot of sex in prison is a dominance thing. I also believe it is probably better to be the fucker as opposed to the fuckee.

This line of thought -- sexual patterns in later life are caused by "traumas" in childhood or infancy -- is very Freudian, I think, and I doubt many people here would credit Freud outside of this particular discussion.

I have no idea where fetishes come from, and I guess maybe Freudian explanations are reasonable. Why are some men into shoes? Maybe because when they were toddlers, they associated what they could see (shoes) with women. I don't know. That's the explanation that's offered a lot.

But sexual orientation seems very fundamental to me, not a little kink or preference for this accessory or that.

I think after a while masturbation just doesn't do it.

Got me through high school. And college. And most of my life since.

I've essentially been a prisoner for 30+ years and I've never thought that another guy's hand might be better than my own.

I don't understand why so many men seem to be obsessed with this subject, beyond trying to convince women that they are bisexual. I mean, really, what is driving this? Is it a fear of homosexuality? Better to be born that way as opposed to turn that way due to environment, therefore, you are not really going homo though you are obsessed with Dick Cheney's cock? Explain, please.

Got me through high school. And college. And most of my life since.

Wd it be safe to say that those peeriod of times, except for high school, were broken up by actual sex and human touch? Not the same as going for 25 years to life with out a soft caress. Plus, let face it-- not everyone is you, ace. Different people will react differently. Also, in prison, in some instances it is not only acceptable but to be expected.

buthow many drinks exactly? you quoted three, but i seem to remember dennis finch claiming only two. could it be a variable number?

This line of thought -- sexual patterns in later life are caused by "traumas" in childhood or infancy -- is very Freudian, I think, and I doubt many people here would credit Freud outside of this particular discussion.

I've seen it in psych reports so I wouldn't discredit it too much.

But sexual orientation seems very fundamental to me, not a little kink or preference for this accessory or that.

Not all fetishes are a little kink or preference but are a driving force.

Because when two guys decide to do stuff to each other, then they're not straight. "Straight" is defined as being heterosexual. If two guys do homosexual things to each other, then by definition they're no longer straight.

So Gay and Straight is not a matter of how one's brain Is, but a matter of how one does?.

Seems counter to common sense, noting all the (and exhibited in early development) feminine tendencies of homosexual males.

Would Paul Lyne really be heterosexual had he never engaged in a homosexual act due to shame or some reason?

If happenstance marrooned a child, Robinson-Cruseo-like on an island, and that child went on to live a life never having sex, would we really have to say this human is neither heterosexual or homosexual? That removed from the island and given the choice of hotties from each sex, he'd feel no "tug" toward one or the other?

I really doubt that. Whether you are a straight or gay man, it seems to me, is a matter of which sex causes your penis to grow and not a matter of where you actually put the penis afterward.

-And Ace, when did you become the spokesman for gay sex?

They just sort of elected me. Why, I have no idea.

Don't play dumb, Ace.

Whether you are a straight or gay man, it seems to me, is a matter of which sex causes your penis to grow and not a matter of where you actually put the penis afterward.

Lot's of things can make your penis grow, doctor. You shd know that.

Would Paul Lyne really be heterosexual had he never engaged in a homosexual act due to shame or some reason?

No, but if Paul Lyne was attracted to women but only had sex with men, I would say he is gay. So, it is a matter of where you put it.

buthow many drinks exactly? you quoted three, but i seem to remember dennis finch claiming only two. could it be a variable number?

Was it two? I thought three. Three is the magic number.

I'm sure it is a variable of some sort, with X sub l (the number of drinks needed for some lesbian action) equal to the integral of y cubed + z squared, where y equals the number of Kristy MacNichol afterschool specials watched as a child and z equals the number of erotically playful towel-snapping fights experienced in the locker room after field hockey practice.

As for gayness' evolutionary adaptive purpose

The Dr comes close but misses.

Gayness is the boundary condition that keeps most males straight while maintaining diversity in sexuality. It acts like a rectifier in that only straights have descendents.

The interference theory in utero from maternal immunity sounds about right. The expression of the inherited bias toward hetrosexuality is supressed and the result is either the default (female) or randomly selected from and unbiased spectrum.

I'm all fagged out. There is no clear consensu for the causes of homosexuality.
I will, however, offer a reason for prison sex.

Why do so-called straight men have homosexual encounters in prison instead of staying "straight" and mastrubating?

All humans have a basic need for the human touch. Interaction with other humans is essential to one's well-being (otherwise, we turn into Ted Kaszynskis).

Although, I do suspect prison sex has more to do with weilding power, i.e. making another prisoner blow you.

"only straights have descendents."

?

Let me clarify my "?":

Obviously, men who only ever have sex with other men in their lives won't be passing their genes on.

But there are many, many men who try their damndest to have a normal straight life, up to and includng the marrying and raising a family thing, before snapping in their 30s or 40s and letting it all hang out.

One more thing about the strippers.

If you go backstage at a strip bar, I'm sure you'll find a lot of straight female strippers with the same sort of stories.

Right. Look at what they are doing. Strippers are cool -- unless it's your daughter doing the stripping. Strippers, by and large, are headcases. The pattern of stripper's backgrounds and behavior are clear and obvious. One example, many strippers are the brides (for short periods) of young, immature, abusive men in the military. Do I need to draw a picture?

Stripping -- perhaps another shining example, like homosexuality, of neurosis necessitating a cure? Probably.

You trying to tell us something, Knemon?

Heh. No, I wasn't describing myself.

My shrink, though ... he's another story.

If happenstance marrooned a child, Robinson-Cruseo-like on an island, and that child went on to live a life never having sex, would we really have to say this human is neither heterosexual or homosexual? That removed from the island and given the choice of hotties from each sex, he'd feel no "tug" toward one or the other?

In essence, yes, this is what I feel to be true. Except that it's more correct to me to say that he would experience equally strong "tugs" toward both.

The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were historical examples of this dynamic. Men would have sex with other men, boys, and then would go on to procreate with wives.

But sexual orientation seems very fundamental to me, not a little kink or preference for this accessory or that.

Yet, when women make the same claim about their own sexuality, men tell them they are wrong. Because, of course, men know more about being a woman than women. Right.

Is it gay to like the Cincinatti Bengals?

Is it gay to like the Cincinatti Bengals?

I dunno. Ask your husband what he thinks.

Yet, when women make the same claim about their own sexuality, men tell them they are wrong. Because, of course, men know more about being a woman than women. Right.

Huh? Who said this? When do men tell women about their own sexuality? We barely even comprehend you, nevermind claiming to explain yourselves to you.

If you're talking about the lesbians stuff, it's just mostly a joke. It's kidding. I'm citing Dennis Finch (David Spade from Just Shoot Me); I'm not being really serious.

Yes, many women seem more comfortable kissing, dancing with, and intimately touching other women, and the rates of female "experimentation" dwarf the rates for men, but that hardly means that all women are basically bisexual.

If I had to guess, I'd say that 30% of women are somewhat actually bisexual, another 30% are bi-curious and wouldn't be above, say, french kissing a female friend, and the other 40% are stone cold straight.

'Kay?

I read this thinking, okay Ace is joking but the majority of the AOSHQ male readers take it seriously. Then I got to your last paragraph.

According to you, Dr. Homo, spokesperson for the gay lifestyle, 60% of women are gay or bi or whatever. That's nuts. Really, truly nuts. I'm sorry. lol! You need to cut back on those coed pictorials or something. lol!

Sue, help me out here.

Or maybe 15/15/70. That sounds more likely.

It's just a fact that women grow up touching other women, and aren't bothered by it.

Straight men don't like touching other men. If another guy's leg touches yours, you pull away like someone put a giant African cockroach on your knee.

If you are not joking, I don't want you to think I'm laughing at you. You have only confirmed that you are a "guy." Only a guy, could believe this. lol!

I've seen a lot of girls making out at parties. I've never seen men kissing.

(Not even gay men, actually.)

Well, there was just a survey of college-aged women that revealed that something like 28% of women had engaged in same-sex sexual activity.

My bad, it was only 14%, which is still pretty high, and I don't think it's unreasonable to guess that an almost equal number are curious about such activity though they haven't actually participated in it.

Yet.

Or maybe 15/15/70. That sounds more likely.

Ew, no.

It's just a fact that women grow up touching other women, and aren't bothered by it.

It's a fact that women aren't grabbing each other's crotches and breasts. That's why they aren't bothered by it.

Straight men don't like touching other men. If another guy's leg touches yours, you pull away like someone put a giant African cockroach on your knee.

It's men who think any touch is sexual b/c for you it is.

I've seen a lot of girls making out at parties.

After a couple of decades of people trying to mainstream sexual deviency, you have girls making out at parties. Plus, you live in NY which makes you all a bunch of perverts anyway.

You can chalk it up to whatever cause you like. For whatever reason, a sizable minority of chicks will kiss each other, or "jokingly" feel each other's breasts, which is just not something guys do in large numbers.

The link to the actual survey is dead. And yeah, it is unreasonable to say that that percentage of women are bi/gay, etc. I bet you think they all "do it" in slo-mo with a gauzy filter, too.

It's men who think any touch is sexual b/c for you it is.

No. I don't think that if my straight friend's leg touches mine it's "sexual" on either side. It's just something a bit unpleasant, like finding a dead mouse in your shoe.

I'm not saying that everytime a woman braids another woman's hair, or gives her a backrub, etc., it's sexual, but the fact is that women are a lot more comfortable with just touching each other for comfort or (nonsexual) pleasure, and from there it's not much of a leap to kissing.

You can chalk it up to whatever cause you like. For whatever reason, a sizable minority of chicks will kiss each other, or "jokingly" feel each other's breasts, which is just not something guys do in large numbers.

I don't have to chalk it up to any cause. What I want to know is why your average male has so much invested in women being bisexual?

And no, a sizable minority of women don't feel each other up. As to men, you are always grabbing each other's butts. Explain that, mister. You take a 100x more nude showers together than any women. Must be all that sports stuff making you sweat. Regardless, there you are naked. Together. Steam rising all around you. When you aren't dropping the soap, you are obsessed with each others genitalia.

Is it gay to like the Cincinatti Bengals?

LOL!!!!!!!!

What I want to know is why your average male has so much invested in women being bisexual?

Because it's hot. But whether there's a vested interest or not, it's a real phenomenon and there are surveys (and a wealth of hot anecdotal evidence) to support it.

And no, a sizable minority of women don't feel each other up. As to men, you are always grabbing each other's butts. Explain that, mister.

Right, we're "always grabbing each other's butts." In fact, it's pretty much replaced the "firm, confident handshake" at this point. It's now considered smart at job interviews to walk up to your would-be employer, seize him by the shoulders, spin him around, and grab both of his buttocks in a powerful-yet-tender double-buttcheek squeeze.

but the fact is that women are a lot more comfortable with just touching each other for comfort or (nonsexual) pleasure, and from there it's not much of a leap to kissing.

Oh, and guy's sports don't have sexual overtones? You are always wresting, and slapping each other's butts. All contact sports are sublimated homosexual acts. Then, we are back to the long steamy naked showers. Women aren't into showering together the way men are.

I just don't agree that women are basically bi. Men have throughout history resorted to homosexuality over and over again. Guys get bored easily, or they would never have to buy more than one porno film. If a guy is in prison long enough, or out to sea, he will get bored with his magazines and look for a different experience. I think any study would be biased as men would not admit to researchers that they have had male partners. This happens in Latin america and Africa when they try to figure out where guys got AIDS, The men all lie and claim they never had sex with men, but we know they are lying. I am a 43 year old woman and I can tell you that most of the women I know are just not as horny as men. Or as desperate for partners. We are usually only horny when we ovulate. Birth control pills make you lose your libido, so when you are on them you really don't care about sex that much. So since you all are horny every minute and we are only horny once a month, the chances of us having to turn to the same sex are minimal. Also, as a woman, my chances to score are much higher than most men, so I don't get that desperate. Those college girls didn't say whether they enjoyed the same sex, sex play either. I had a friend that tried it once while drunk and she barfed. When I watch porn, I am actually more aroused by guy on guy action, than girl on girl, usually because the gay actors are really aroused by the sex, the girls are always faking it. Men are gay, that's all!

I'm sorry, but this has become absurd. You're denying a phenomenon for which there is evidence and just making crap up about men really digging on showering with other men, and getting all sorts of sexual charges out of contact sports.

This has now descended into I'm-rubber-you're-glue-ism, which would be fine if it were funny, but it's not.

Because it's hot. But whether there's a vested interest or not, it's a real phenomenon and there are surveys (and a wealth of hot anecdotal evidence) to support it.

Playboy surveys and NY parties don't count.

Right, we're "always grabbing each other's butts." In fact, it's pretty much replaced the "firm, confident handshake" at this point. It's now considered smart at job interviews to walk up to your would-be employer, seize him by the shoulders, spin him around, and grab both of his buttocks in a powerful-yet-tender double-buttcheek squeeze.

Thank you for confirming what women always suspected to be true. lol!

I'm sorry, but this has become absurd. You're denying a phenomenon for which there is evidence and just making crap up about men really digging on showering with other men, and getting all sorts of sexual charges out of contact sports.

A phenomena that is contested and that you have yet to prove. And why do you say women are into showering with each other? The bottom line is that if men are not into it, why do men do it all the time? You brought up the touch thing. I just pointed out that men touch each other just as much if not more. You just disguise it and call it something else. Now why all of a sudden are you so threatened by this?

This has now descended into I'm-rubber-you're-glue-ism, which would be fine if it were funny, but it's not.

It is funny. It is even funnier that when assumptions are made about men's sexuality they get all uncomfortable.

Girl on girl action turns you on? Well, Michelle just said men on men action does. So, I expect to a little more making out between the guys at AOSHQ in the future. It is the least you can do for your women readers.

1, I provided a survey -- not a playboy survey -- reporting that 14% of teenage and college age women had had same-sex relations. You simply ignore this, saying my Link doesn't work, therefore, apparently, the survey didn't happen.

Find it yourself. It's a real survey.

2, men shower with other men more frequently with men because men are more often are involved in group sports or going to gyms and the like.

Far as I know, women who go to gyms shower with each other, too.

No offense, but if you've missed out on this rather undeniable phenomenon, you're either a little bit sheltered or a little too old to have seen the "Lesbian Chic" phenomenon go wide. I'm really not interested in further discussing facts that you just reflexively deny.

I've seen a lot of chicks make out. I've seen chicks do more than make out with each other -- a lot more. I've never seen straight men do this.

Your eternal response is "That doesn't count; I wasn't there." Well, yeah, you weren't there. We didn't invite you because we didn't want you killing the lesbian-experimentation buzz.

Perhaps a distinction should be made between "gay" and "homosexual". "Homosexual" could refer to someone who engages in sexual activity with the same sex, which may include gay people as well as those who are "gay for pay". "Gay" can refer to people who yearn socially, emotionally, and sexually for the same sex. There are plenty of gay people who are not homosexual and even some homosexuals who may not be gay.

I, too, have noticed that it seems that lots of gay men have been abused, but I know a few who have not been abused. I know more non-abused gay men than abused. I don't think we ought to rush to any judgment on either side before it is scientifically determined. After all, gay men are more open to discussing their sexuality and sexual past than straight men: by this very fact, the appearance that gay men may be abused more than straight men cannot be relied on.

We can even use the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church for this.
1. How many gay priests are there?
2. How many gay priests have been abused?
3. How many gay priests have abused males?
4. How many abusive gay priests were abused?
5. How many abusive gay priests abused males?
5. How many victims of abusive priests are (past puberty) gay?

Another point, which I think one ought to keep in mind: different cultures are different. In South Asia, it is not unusual to see male friends hug, hold hands, or have their arms around each other's shoulders. With some his close Pakistani male friends, my South Asian-born and bred father uses what can be considered romantic phrases. Nevertheless, these men are heterosexual and straight. Quite so. In the Arab culture, men kiss each other, and yet they are quite heterosexual and straight. And as anyone can imagine, both of these cultures are quite intolerant of homosexuality. (You know where homosexuality is common? In the northwest, with the Patthans and Afghanis, and especially in the Taliban. I kid you not. A cousin once went to that area; he said that he and his friend had to not shave for a while because if a traveller is clean-shaven, he will be abducted and raped.)

Homosexuality: Limited to Sex Preference or Deeply Ingrained Multi-Variable Trait? A case study.

Sue:

Interesting. Beth calls an argument nonsense, your response is to insult her as a moonbat would, by hypocritically labeling her as gay. If there's nothing wrong with being gay, why hurl it as an accusation?

I was joking, you ignorant twit.

Men are gay, men are gay, men are gay, nanner nanner. Girls don't shower together at the gym because we have private showers, because we like it that way. We don't pee together either, like guys do. A lot of queer things happen in men's restrooms. Except for an eagle's cheerleader or 2, that shit never happens in the girl's restroom.

1, There was no way to confirm what type of survey it was or to test it's accuracy because the link you provided was dead. Therefore, you find it, I'm not the proponent of said survey.

2, men shower with other men because you are obviously either bisexual or gay. Ask Michelle.

No offense, but if you've missed out on this rather undeniable phenomenon, you're either a little bit sheltered or a little too old to have seen the "Lesbian Chic" phenomenon go wide.

Oh, please. I missed out on nothing because one, I'm not interested in sex with othe women, and two, what's old is new again. Don't go acting like you invented lesbians.

I'm really not interested in further discussing facts that you just reflexively deny.

Now, you're acting all prissy. You already said you were no longer going to engage in this discussion and yet here you are.

Your eternal response is "That doesn't count; I wasn't there."

No, my eternal response, is why the fuck do people make up statements and put quotes around them in order for it to appear as if I said it?

Well, yeah, you weren't there. We didn't invite you because we didn't want you killing the lesbian-experimentation buzz.

We? Are you now a lesbian?

Michelle, there are going to be alot of guys crying themselves to sleep tonight upon learning that most girls aren't into girl on girl sex. Oh, the horror!

Hey Bill, did you see that strange little sequence of letters in my post?

E:IWBSNI

Excuse: I Was Being Satirical Not Insulting

You are nothing if not predictable.

Oh well, I read romance novels and the men in real life are nothing like the men in romance novels either. That's why it's called fantasy. Go on and dream a little guys. Of course hot girls love girl on girl action. Every once in awhile an Eagle's cheerleader can throw you a boner. Oops, I mean bone.

You just got owned by an "ignorant twit." A woman, even. That makes you, I don't know, something less than an ignorant female twit. Quick, have an angry multiparagraph outburst, it will sooth your tiny male ego.

Sue -

Hey Bill, did you see that strange little sequence of letters in my post?

E:IWBSNI

Excuse: I Was Being Satirical Not Insulting

You are nothing if not predictable.

So let me get this straight - my perception of your intent to be satrirical - when you bust my balls almost every thread - is reliant on my understanding of some obscure 7-letter internet acronym that I've never heard of? An acronym so obscure, it doesn't even show up with a reference in google?

Which just validates your twithood. Only not "ignorant," rather oddly self-centered to a point that you don't know how to communicate with other people. As far as my "tiny male ego," what exactly does this assert:

You just got owned by an "ignorant twit." A woman, even. That makes you, I don't know, something less than an ignorant female twit.

If I had to guess, I'd say that somebody's just mad that they don't have a penis!

Oh, and Sue -

RYAAFI:ANINJ,ARFI.D.SSD.MYGICBHDYA

I think it's a combo of genes & Freud. I also think there's a different genetic basis for male & female homosexualities, which manifest themselves so differently. It's possible that the gene that causes male homosexuality - a nondesirable trait vis a vis evolution - confers some sort of genetic benefit to women.

It's not uncommon for genes to have different effects on males & females. So if a gene that contributed to healthier babies in women also produced a negligible incidence of male homosexuality, the gene would be passed on, because it's a net gain to the species.

Eh, what the hell would you know about it.

Bill,

Would you like me to edit your response to this:

"Oh, okay. No prob, never heard of that before."

?

Just thinking that, you know, you don't have to go all fucking Travis Bickle over every little thing.

umm...actually, Dr. Symes, there are functional and morphological differences in fMRI scans of homosexual brains and heterosexual brains. Homosexual brains are intermediate between hetero-male and hetero-female brains, which are quite widely different.
jus sayin.

Just thinking that, you know, you don't have to go all fucking Travis Bickle over every little thing.

Oh come on, Ace, don't discourage him, it's some of the best entertainment around here.

And Bill, I bust your balls because 1. It's so easy, and 2. You deserve it.

You come here swinging your dick around by putting forth your opinion as if all should bow before it in awe because you are the only person who can possibly be correct, and then get infuriated when someone else questions or challenges your arguments.

On Ace's blog, you can only stamp your little feet in a tantrum, like my children used to do before my husband and I taught them to be mindful of others. On your own blog, you do what your anger dictates you must do - silence your opposition by banning them.

By the way, the "acronym" was not some internet abbreviation, it was a way of predicting to everyone what you were going to do without tipping you off to it. You're not smart enough to know that, are you Bill? You're not very smart at all, really, you just pretend to be smart and you get angry at anyone who might expose your ruse.

Oh, and Bill, if that's not random typing in your "acronym" above, how many insults did you fit in there, and when will you say "hurr durrr just kidding durr hurr" after I call you on it?