Text 13484, 79 rader
Skriven 2007-04-12 11:29:08 av lizardgirl (16929.babylon5)
  Kommentar till text 13415 av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (16860.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
On Apr 10, 6:41 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 Mar 2007 10:09:21 -0800, "lizardgirl" <gab...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 9:29 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 21 Feb 2007 21:47:21 -0800, "Matthew Vincent"
>
> >> <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Jan 27, 12:53 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Gay people sometimes even go so far as to hire escorts to
> >> >>convince the guys at work that they're straight.
>
> >> >The fact that this strategy is sometimes successful shows the degree
> >> >to which bisexual invisibility still clouds our culture's assumptions.
> >> >Why on earth would anyone assume that the presence of attraction to
> >> >one sex implies the absence of attraction to the other sex?
>
> >> Strange, isn't it? But then, homosexuality has been driven so far
> >> underground in our society that we've forgotten that it has a more
> >> casual side -- and it was medicalized by mediocre psychiatrists into a
> >> "condition," which implies that it's solely an either-or phenomenon.
>
> >a 'more casual side' is a great way to put it.  understanding
> >homosexuality as a character trait that may have a genetic component
> >is not an easy thing for some to contemplate.
>
> >says little tommy to his shrink, "so that boy crush i had on bob in
> >the third grade was normal and *doesn't* mean i'm gay?"
>
> Just read an interesting article on the subject in today's Times:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ytp5db
>
> I suppose it's too much to expect an accurate treatment in a popular
> science article, and certainly this one doesn't disappoint, neglecting
> as it does to mention the Kinsey scale and the malleability of our
> sexual desires. Still, there's some interesting stuff here, including
> the oops rediscovery of something that Freud observed 100 years ago:
> men, rather than women, determine object choice -- women seem in most
> cases to be intrinsically bi.
>

overall, like you, i think the article is a bit thin.  i have heard
about the older brother effect.
also about how 'hostile' the womb is to testosterone and subsequent
male pregnancies.

I did find the bit about male homosexuality being 'evolutionarily
maladaptive,' a genetic variant that is ever present interesting.

seems to me science is looking for a biological, rather then a
psychological, explanation for sexual orientation.  Which seems likely
and only partly responsible.

We aren't 'animals' after all.  out in the wild when a female goes
into heat, all the boys know about it.   and they all come a running
cause if they miss it their out of luck until next year.   Not so with
human females who can get pregnant any month out of the year.

There are few (pheromones possible) external indicators that signal a
womens fertility.

Nor are women (in contrast to say, lions) so completely at the mercy
of their reproductive cycles.  Sex for people can be completely about
the sex, biological imperative be danmed.  The article suggests that
bisexuality in women is related to the need to successfully raise
their young.  Forming sexual relationships with other women ensures a
network of resources from with a mother can gain valuable information
and support.  Trading sex for knowledge I suppose.

Whatever you boys have to tell yourselves.  :^)

lg
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)