minitrialer Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 Yer i agree with you Anzo. I mean it depends who you talk to ( how much of a dirty bitch they are) but i think most girls don't admit it any way but just do it when they aren't getting any. Who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusional Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 As immature as that was, still made me laugh. Well done I think ugly girls masterbate a lot because they can't get any. Lads do it if they can get any or not. Most girls I talk to act all innocent and dont know what the hell masterbation is.Errr, or how about all people do it as much as their sexual drive pushes them to? Of course, in our society it's quite acceptable for men to talk about it in public, but not so much for women. As I said before, we're impressionable monkeys; you'll probably find this affects how much people talk about it (women being coy about it and men exaggerating) but it isn't so much borne out in reality. Just look at the very existence of Ann Summers, they make a pretty neat profit out of ladies getting themselves off Still, I don't think gender has that much to do with it you know. Mostly sex drive, and that's an individual thing, not a gendered thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted October 25, 2006 Report Share Posted October 25, 2006 the very fact that people desire others of the same gender (and thus biologically impossible to breed with) shows that desire neccessarily has nothing to do with reproduction. I think that in terms of evolution, the most sexually active creatures are going to be selected for, and other species get wiped out (Look at Pandas, for example). By this logic, desire to reproduce would have to be a part of the human make-up. It's not just sex, either. You ever seen a woman go all googly-eyed over a baby? That's an inbuilt mechanism to make the human race want to breed. Sex is good, because over the course of evolution, the animals that enjoyed sex, lived.I think desire for something other than heterosexual intercourse is a just a side-effect of the evolution that causes us to enjoy sex. I.e. We enjoy it because endorphins are released when we ejaculate. This causes us to enjoy heterosexual sex, but also other forms of sex (oral, homosexual, masturbation etc). So sexuality is the effect of the evolutionary mechanism, not the actual mechanism itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1a2bcio8 Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 I think you are right Tomm that the most heterosexually active individuals of a species will be the ones that are most like to pass on their genes. This is what backs up the idea of imprinting. That if there were genes that coded for homosexuality, they would probably die out being that homosexual reproduction looks a bit difficult. So it seems that we have a mechanism that, if considering a function of reproduction, is not entirely accurate. This doesn't mean that genes neccesarily have an absoulte function towards our survival. I think it's more acurate to say that genes are creative and thereafter to say one of their creative functions it that of survival. Thus, everything is "natural".This is not to say that genetic biases or absolutes don't exist, although I find absolutes to be unlikely because evolution would probably remove them. But even if biases exist it's still worth making the obvious statement that this does not make them 100% and a complete decider of sexuality. It's then relative to environmental conditions. You can never really say anything about a development type (phenotype) without considering the enivornments interaction with genes (genotype).My opinion is that desire is a sexual potential, of functional evolution, waiting to be actualized and directed by a moment of, imprint vulnerability and possible genetic bias, which sets a preference relative to a given environment, at a given time. This is how your place on the sexuality spectrum is decided. It's also worth mentioning a chap called Kinsey, who discovered that we all usually have more than one place on the sexual spectrum, with varying degree of desire at each of those places. In effect, most of us are at least slightly bi-sexual. There's no reason why there wouldn't be more than one sexual imprint; this would have an evoultionary function to survival. This of course, due to certain social pressures can be a difficult thing to admit, especially to ourselves. I'd like to hear what you people think about this. I think though that quite simply, it is just an expansion of the heterosexual desire between say, foot fetish and domination.Books worth reading on imprint vulnerability is anything by Konrad Lorez (ethology) or "Prometheus Rising" by Robert Anton Wilon < My favourite author. Tim Leary also has a book called info-psychology. Although I'm still waiting for it to arrive I'm very sure it also discusses Imprinting. The latter books mainly discuss the 8-circuit model. Something which is equally fascinating and based, to a large degree, on imprinting. I highly recommend pursuing it. They also discuss re-creating imprint vulnerability. Also check out Stanisalv Grof - The Holotropic Mind if you want methods of adjusting/changing imprints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Revolution not evolution...No..its the other way round, evolution not revolution...Well...whatever, but that is me, because I evolve, but I don't...revolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopipe Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Revolution not evolution...No..its the other way round, evolution not revolution...Well...whatever, but that is me, because I evolve, but I don't...revolve.so, you're turning ? re: what rowly & Tomm said ... I'm pretty much fully in agreement with what you both said but something's occured to me that I think you might have something to say about . . Is it not possible that a rise in acceptance of deviant** sexuality is a sort of hive-mind type defence mechanism against overpopulation? I've not checked my facts or anything but from what I've managed to remember from reading about the roman empire&stuff they didn't get proper freaky (in a poking goats sort of a way) as a society until fairly shortly before the collapse(s) - which is when the empire would have been straining to maintain it's largest population. We're in a similar situation globaly with overpopulation at the moment - I know you still get hung for being gay in turbanistan ( i made that up ) but cultural values tend to start at the top with the most decadant types (in this case the west) and filter their way down slowly to everybody else .. **disclaimer - I'm not having a go at bummers - scientifically speaking, anything other than missionary with you're wife is deviant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 so, you're turning ? (Alan Partridge quote, I saw the word 'evolution' a few times and felt it nessesary). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spode@thinkbikes Posted October 26, 2006 Report Share Posted October 26, 2006 Is it not possible that a rise in acceptance of deviant** sexuality is a sort of hive-mind type defence mechanism against overpopulation?LOL. I've been wondering the same thing. Like goldfish - they stop breeding when they know you can't fit any more in to a container. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.