Jon Miller is right about....

[MRT144]

Re: Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by Asher

Male form.

Although aesthetic appreciation is not the same as sexual attraction, so you are wrong.

one follows the other

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by LordShiva
I ate an apple today. It was green.

OMG ALL APPLES ARE GREEN!

That conclusion is indeed more likely for every green apple you observe

[Jon Miller]

There is scientific (once more, biologists, not liberal artists) evidence in favor of homosexual gene.

There is some evidence that some claim is in favor of everybody being inherently bisexual, but very clear evidence suggests clear inherent heterosexuality and homosexuality. This would suggest that there is another prime factor in observed bisexuality.

Bisexual behavior has been observed to be linked to certain nonSex genes related to 'risk taking'. (based off of memory of a tank I went to several years ago) This also suggests that it isn't an inherent sexuality (linked to genes, as in homosexuality or heterosexuality) rather is derived from the interaction of other genes.

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by MRT144
one follows the other

No they don't. I may appreciate the aesthetics of a sports car but it doesn't sexually excite me.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Bisexual behavior has been observed to be linked to certain nonSex genes related to 'risk taking'. (based off of memory of a tank I went to several years ago) This also suggests that it isn't an inherent sexuality (linked to genes, as in homosexuality or heterosexuality) rather is derived from the interaction of other genes.

So a trait is only "inherent" if it's governed by a single gene? Hardly anything qualifies, then.

Where is the "heterosexual gene," anyway?

[MRT144]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by Asher

No they don't. I may appreciate the aesthetics of a sports car but it doesn't sexually excite me.

but thats cause youre not carsexual asher.

what im saying is, the development of those sexual feelings came from, in my mind, the aesthetics of the male body. When i started looking at ideal forms of the male body more closely I went, "this is hot!"

[Asher]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by MRT144
but thats cause youre not carsexual asher.

what im saying is, the development of those sexual feelings came from, in my mind, the aesthetics of the male body. When i started looking at ideal forms of the male body more closely I went, "this is hot!"

Sexual attraction and aesthetic appreciation are not the same thing, no matter what you tell yourself.

[MRT144]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by Asher

Sexual attraction and aesthetic appreciation are not the same thing, no matter what you tell yourself.

youre right. they arent the same thing. i just feel that one led to the other in me.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by LordShiva


So a trait is only "inherent" if it's governed by a single gene? Hardly anything qualifies, then.

Where is the "heterosexual gene," anyway?

If it is the reasonable behavior under certain social conditions tied to nonsexual genetics then it isn't inherent.

In the case of the "risk" gene, it makes sense that those that are more inclined to "risk" would engage in "risk" behavior sexually (ie, different than their usual behavior). This doesn't mean that this is a sex gene, rather the sexual behavior is (in our culture) the result of differing attitudes... It is also, btw, associated with more sexual partners (several times more, and not just from the differing sexuality).

I doubt that this would be true of lower animals (many of which do display homosexuality by the way).

This genetic "risk" gene was observed in both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Homosexuals who had it had more heterosexual partners.

This gene was also tied to nonsexual "risky" behavior.

Jon Miller
(once more, presenting material which was presented to me years ago)

[LordShiva]

Sex is heavily influenced by the genes that code for testosterone, epinephrine, oxytocin, etc., all of which influence non-sexual behaviour as well.

[MRT144]

ahser is just mad im more like a greek than he.

[Jon Miller]

But can't you see how a gene that seems to be associated with trying new things/behaviors/etc would also incline one to do so sexually?

Yeah, I didn't get into testosterone yet. (definitely link between increased testosterone and homosexuality) (for both men and women)

Really, as I said, this isn't my field of study and I can't cover everything. I still haven't seen any evidence that runs counter to by hypothesis.

The biggest suggests for an inherent homosexuality is the homosexuality observed in low level sexed animals of very different biologies. I do admit that I don't know if bugs, for example, have testosterone.

If they don't, it would suggest that increased testosterone is a result, rather than a cause of homosexuality.

Jon Miller
(I also beleive homosexuals when they say that they have tried to be heterosexuals, and were made unhappy by soceity because of this. I admit that this isn't as clear scientifically though (but would be against the position of everyone being bisexual).)

[Lord Avalon]

Re: Jon Miller is right about....

Originally posted by cronos_qc
...
She asked to me If I have ever had sex with a guy. I said no. I ask the same thing to her; she answered that she kissed a women one times(while drunk). And she liked it a lot, and since this events she now wants to have sex with another girl. Before that events she didn't had a single desire to have sex with a woman.

I'll reserve judgment till I see the video of your gf having sex with another girl.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
ahser is just mad im more like a greek than he.

hairy, small-dicked, and irrelevant?

[CrONoS]

The video will go out the day Duke Nukem Forever will be release.!