What are you wearing today?

[Faust]

[out of lurkerville]

i think i'm in love.

these statements make more sense than 99% of the stuff i read on this forum.

[/retreat back into lurkerville]

fuck off then. (no offense to interest1)

[merkuri]

sex is something i don't particularly like to overthink. i just go with it.

my mom is overweight and likes puerto rican dudes. care to esplain?

Wait, are you seriously trying to say that some mysterious gene of the "dudes liking irish-lookin girls" is pushing you to go for that while culture both in your neighborhood and at large + your relationship with your parents and other psychoanalytic factors are not suitable explanations?

Are you all taking crazy pills? Talking about sexual preferences, who was born with the gene that makes you get turned on by girls popping balloons? In what kind of absolutely topsy-turvy teleological reality do you "nature made me do it!!" people live?

[zamb]

Three hours sleep last night, and a long day buying fabric and running around Manhattan today...................even though I want to, I cannot think coherently enough to enter the discussion...............

[beardown]

Sexual ORIENTATION might have a genetic component (unconfirmed). Taste in sexual partners is cultural, for example the female "ideal" changes a lot from culture to culture and epoch to epoch. Take something like attractive eye shapes; it underwent a transformation in Asia after extensive exposure to Western media and culture.

Bah.
Where's your faith in science?
I'm not gay but I always get a kick out of people who don't believe there to be a serious, direct genetic component to it. Does it matter if there's not a silver bullet that can spell it out for us?

This is some of the latest evidence but again, I feel like we've literally just cracked the book on cracking genetic coding and possibilities.

Let's not forget that there are camps all over the U.S. who are convinced they can 'pray the gay away' and, at one time, people thought the earth was flat and that the sun was a god because there was no 'evidence' to support otherwise.

[YoungM]

Bah.
Where's your faith in science?
I'm not gay but I always get a kick out of people who don't believe there to be a serious, direct genetic component to it. Does it matter if there's not a silver bullet that can spell it out for us?

This is some of the latest evidence but again, I feel like we've literally just cracked the book on cracking genetic coding and possibilities.

Let's not forget that there are camps all over the U.S. who are convinced they can 'pray the gay away' and, at one time, people thought the earth was flat and that the sun was a god because there was no 'evidence' to support otherwise.

Perhaps it's because I'm tired, but I find this post full of lawlz. I don't really care much about whether sexual orientation is genetic or not, and if I were to put forth an opinion, I would probably agree with you. However, I do find it hilarious that, in the same breath, you can urge someone to have faith in science, and accuse others of ignorance for having faith in something else. I sort of think that's missing the point. Your assumption that sexual orientation is genetic seems barely less arbitrary than those early attempts at explaining the sun.

[jogu]

theeeese boots are nice ! idk if its from the flash but i like the coppery color

[endorphinz]

fuck off then. (no offense to interest1)

i enjoy the other 1%

[zamb]

Bah.
Where's your faith in science?
I'm not gay but I always get a kick out of people who don't believe there to be a serious, direct genetic component to it. Does it matter if there's not a silver bullet that can spell it out for us?

This is some of the latest evidence but again, I feel like we've literally just cracked the book on cracking genetic coding and possibilities.

Let's not forget that there are camps all over the U.S. who are convinced they can 'pray the gay away' and, at one time, people thought the earth was flat and that the sun was a god because there was no 'evidence' to support otherwise.

I am a great lover of science, I was a pure science student in school with the intent of studying medicine before by some unconscious series of events I became a clothing designer............one of the greatest hypocritical positions of the scientific community is to quickly request evidence for any kind of assertion made by individuals from the fields outside of science...........however a significant portion (more than 50%) of what has been accepted has science is often illogical or has no evidence to support it at all and in many ways requires greater faith to believe than any religion that exist!........ hence the hypocrisy.
If accepted scientific truths are to be based on empirical evidence, someone needs to explain this double standard......
I will be spending a significant portion of the rest of my life fighting this injustice. All reality and knowledge cannot and shouldn't be viewed through a scientific framework. there are different aspects of Human existence and reality, and if we are going to know any kind of objective truth, all fields of knowledge has to inform each other for us to have a more accurate understanding of the world.
The arrogance of many scientist, is that they are of the view that science should reign supreme as the ultimate authority as to what can be known and is to be accepted as truth.
There are many irrefutable truths that exist for which we have no empirical evidence at all, reducing everything and viewing it through the lens of science may teach us some things, but will never give us an accurate understanding of anything.............it is like a man inside of a house studying every corner of it internally and believing that by doing that he will have comprehensive knowledge of every aspects of the house within and without!
One of the greatest wish I have for human persons is that we would put aside some of the nonsense that is taught to us in the walls of academic institutions and stretch our minds to analyze and truthfully view the world for ourselves. ultimately, we will on some level have to rely on information from others but we have a great responsibility to carefully scrutinize and critically analyze all information before we take it as truth...................As the Apostle Paul said in 1st. Thessalonians 5:21, "prove all things, hold fast to that which is good"

[Sombre]

Bah.
Where's your faith in science?
I'm not gay but I always get a kick out of people who don't believe there to be a serious, direct genetic component to it. Does it matter if there's not a silver bullet that can spell it out for us?

This is some of the latest evidence but again, I feel like we've literally just cracked the book on cracking genetic coding and possibilities.

Let's not forget that there are camps all over the U.S. who are convinced they can 'pray the gay away' and, at one time, people thought the earth was flat and that the sun was a god because there was no 'evidence' to support otherwise.

This certainly belongs elsewhere, but the thread has already been derailed. I know there's a possible link between genetics and homosexuality in males, but as far as I know, that connection is conspicuously absent in lesbians. Is there a proposed explanation for that?

[pierce]

Well there were some studies that show that women in our past societies used sex as something to cement relationships in addition to procreation.
Maybe that has something to do with it.
One interesting thing they found in the same study was that they could not measure sexual responses in the same way as they do for men, which is blood flow to the genitals. When the women test subjects were shown pictures of monkeys having sex, they noted increased blood flow to the vagina the same as when they were shown a man and a women having sex. This pointed to a pre-historic self protection mechanism against forced sex similar to the way our blood pressure drops when shown a needle.

Getting back to the science proving if your born gay, it is very important as it would shut up the people who claim it is perversion rather than something as natural as the leaves on a tree.

[zamb]

This certainly belongs elsewhere, but the thread has already been derailed. I know there's a possible link between genetics and homosexuality in males, but as far as I know, that connection is conspicuously absent in lesbians. Is there a proposed explanation for that?

Well, maybe there should also be a study done to see if some individuals are "genetically" predisposed for polygamy.......
I am married and faithful to my wife, I will continue to be faithful, but I always see other women that I am attracted to and want to be with........Is in a part of my nature?

[casem]

I dunno how sexuality keeps coming up but I think some arguments are being misunderstood. Here's my simplified take on it:
Sexuality and all that it entails is a social construct. This whole binary between homosexual and heterosexual, and a certain implicit "lifestlye" is completely man made and therefore subjective. Now, there may be a gene that makes me like dudes and you like women and someone else like both just about equally, but the expression of that gene in society is what I would term sexuality. Attraction to the same sex is completely natural in the sense that it occurs in nature even in species that don't create this idea of sexuality, it's a natural deviation that a few male monkeys are going to be more interested in playing with other male monkeys and think nothing of it. We humans though, with our languages and societies, have created a term for this and a series of assumptions to go along with it.

It's a very tricky and nuanced point. To the general populace, I don't think it's worth explaining all this, because if you say "yes, homesexuality is a social construct" people go "oh see! it is a choice! you're just being gay to piss off god!" etc. etc. So, if most people ask if being gay is a choice, I wil say "no." But I think Fuuma understands the nuances of all this and that's what he is getting at. It's funny, because if you really get into radical queer theory, and start rejecting sexuality as a construct, and rejecting labels (refusing to identifying as gay) conservative start to think you are agreeing with them!

Anyway, this is a hot topic for me, I just got in an argument a week ago with my boyfriend, whose getting into queer theory (half a year of grad. school and now he's an expert!) and over the holidays while dining with his Grandma she asked if you are born gay and he said no! Of course he was coming from a the prospective that what we define as gay is socially constructed, but I gave him a good kick under the table because I don't think it's worth arguing queer theory with Grandma because a statement like that is going to be taken the wrong way.

That's all I got, now show me what you are wearing.

[diamonds]

not the place for this kind of conversation.

post some fucking outfits

[casem]

Yes, of course it's part of your nature! In a complete social vacuum, I would probably have sex with anything I came across

Well, maybe there should also be a study done to see if some individuals are "genetically" predisposed for polygamy.......
I am married and faithful to my wife, I will continue to be faithful, but I always see other women that I am attracted to and want to be with........Is in a part of my nature?

[pierce]

Totally. Personally I have two girl friends.