Why blondes are dumb.

Scientific research

Actually, they (all women in general and not just blondes ) appear get much better value out of an orgasm. Probably why men need to rely more on alcohol and drugs to periodically disengage amygdala and hippocampus function.

You just lost every bit of respect I had to you.

Never thought I'd hear it from you, I thought only the dumbest among those I know will say such nonsense things.
I suppose you are part of them.

Justin, you are SICK also.

~Infernity

Infernity, you must not understand the typical male brain very well if you're letting a comment like that affect your respect for Justin.

The thinking is pretty straightforward. Men are attracted to women, not to men. Men like to watch porn, involving men with women. They're attacted to the women, but there's nothing really exciting about the male half of the porn equation. Replace the man with a woman, and the excitement factor of the porn goes up.

Now, society has decided that homosexuality is bad, so there's a societally ingrained counterforce to make lesbian porn less exciting than straight porn. I doubt the aversion to lesbian porn is innate in the male genome, so a male who is not easily swayed by societal norms is therefore more likely to prefer lesbian porn over straight porn.

From a Baysean analysis perspective, Justin's statement allows me to conclude more likely than not that he is not the type that is easily swayed by societal norms. The fact that he is interested in immortality, and has no qualms about changing his gender, is further proof of this.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, statistically speaking (since I can't say this with certainty), Justin is more likely than not a well-suited individual for immortality.

Of course, you're a woman, and it's probably not inherently programmed into the female genome (thought there's evidence it might be in a minority of the female genepool) to desire a woman. Women are supposed to desire men, for evolution to work. There's a slight advantage to being bi-sexual, since a caveman that sees two women together is not likely to pass that opportunity up (for the aforementioned reasons), thus helping continue the bi-sexual genes in the genepool. I wouldn't be surprised if lesbianism is like sickle-cell anemia: bad to have two copies of the gene, but good to have one copy, in the right circumstances. For sickle-cell anemia, that circumstance is malaria. For lesbian genes (assuming they exist), that circumstance would be men who can't resist seeing two women together, which is a likely probability.

Unfortunately, most women won't have a copy of the gene, so they will naturally be disgusted by the idea. But it's basic evolution. And since societal aversions to lesbianism are fairly arbitrary, I don't see why Justin's statements make him a person whom you should lose all respect for.

Sure, be disgusted by it, since that's (female) human nature, but look at it for what it is: (male) human nature.

Sounds like a "just so story" to me. What is your evolutionary explanation for male homosexuality?

I have a female friend who thinks it's hot for two guys to be together. And I vaguely remember hearing about some study where men who were not gay but had gay siblings were more likely to be very sexually active and promiscuous, so even though being heterozygous might not attract women to them, it might nevertheless make them better at breeding.

Of course, that's pure speculation, since I can't reference the study, and whereever I heard it might have been a disreputable source. So it's in the category of hearsay at the moment.

When I was younger, I completely discounted any possibility that homosexuality had any genetic component. I thought, I "knew" (in quotes on purpose) that homosexuals were that way because of choice, whether conscious or subconscious, probably heavily influenced by "nurture", but not by "nature". I tried to justify it be reasoning that homosexuals wouldn't breed, and would hence be diluted out of the gene pool, since only heterozygous offspring would reproduce (and only if it was a recessive trait; if it were dominant, it would disappear in one or two generations).

Of course, even though I was an atheist when I first held this view, I'll admit that America's Judeo-Christian principles were found within me. I tried to reason my position, but it was largely just in-grained societal prejudice. After becoming Christian, I was even more convinced that it couldn't be genetic... At first.

I eventually began to see more and more studies claiming genetic influences, however marginally weak. None seemed to indicate to me that a person is 100% homosexual, that they have no choice, or, that is to say, I don't think anyone is genetically preconditioned to favor same-sex attractions and opposite-sex aversions to the same degree as the "straight" segment of the population is genetically-preconditioned to favor opposite-sex attractions and same-sex aversions. I don't see it as being a strong enough trait to completely reverse the roles at the genetic level. However, a large amount of predisposition, combined with nurture and choice, and I can see someone reaching that point by their teenage years.

But from a Christian perspective, I couldn't accept that God would allow someone to be genetically programmed to have opposite attractions and aversions to the same degree, effectively flipping the scale. It's not just a switch involved, there are so many pheromones (sp?), visual ratio cues, body part cues, etc., for a single switch to control them all. No, I couldn't accept that at least some part of it was choice, because God would not allow someone to be programmed to "sin". I tried to justify in my mind that, to whatever degree homosexuality was genetically predisposed, the person still had a choice not to act upon those feelings. If a man couldn't bring himself to be with a woman, then as long as he stayed chaste, avoiding the men as well, he would be guiltless.

However, the last year has seen shift in my position, and I'm much more agnostic on whether someone could be genetically programmed to have attractions and aversions as strong as those in heterosexuals, but reversed with respect to the sexes. And I am also agnostic on whether it's "right" or "wrong", even setting aside genetics. Why can't a person choose to go against one's genetic predisposition for being attracted to the opposite sex?

I am also no longer a homophobe, which I was just a year or two ago. I can honestly say that I've reached a point where I don't care, and it bothers me that other people do care. It's a difficult thing to overcome that prejudice, but I feel I've grown as a person in changing my view.

Well, I am glad you are no longer a homophobe, and speaking as a former neo-con, I can state confidently that there are probably skeletons in all of our "belief closets". The idea of homosexuality being a trait which leads to an unfit organism is a common one and stems from a simplistic view of evolutionary theory. When one factors in the possibility of multigenic inheritance, the evolutionary logic behind homosexuality becomes more plausible.

Is there a genetic component to homosexuality? Now that's a silly question. Of course, there's a genetic component to all human behavior. The more interesting and elusive question is the ratio of genetic to environmental, nature to nurture.

But to tell you the truth, the question of whether homosexuality is a predominately a phenomenon of genetics or environment (or even free will [:o] [lol] ) is entirely irrelevant to me. As a progressive humanist I believe strongly in individual rights. The only prerequisite for appropriate sexual relations is mutual consent and the ability (as decided upon by society) to give that consent. So as I say in real life, "whatever floats your boat."

The main reason that I asked you the initial question however was that I do not perceive the statement



as being a reality. I have never heard of, nor seen studies for, females finding male homosexual activity attractive. And of course, this would only beg the question of why they found this kind of behavior attractive to begin with...

Not necessarily. She has every right to take offence - in fact I would have been surprised had she not. Irrespective of your explanation, which incidentally I found myself in agreement with, there is no justification for JustinB's remarks in a public forum of this nature without due consideration for those who are reading these posts. I do realize that we are in the "Open Discussion" realm but the very title "Why blondes are dumb" can be construed as offensive and in fact an unusual choice of labelling the findings on the effects of orgasm in female versus male brain activity.

If it were my 14 year old daughter that was present whilst personal sex fantasies were being waved around I know that I would not to take it too well.

Yes Harold, I thought free speech would have been more appropriate for this thread, though if discussed in a mature manner open discussion could have been an acceptable location for it. The title, well, I thought it was just Justin being cheeky and perhaps indicative of how humor sometimes does not translate well over the internet. Ah well, this one's going to the catcher. It should have been in free speech to begin with.

There are significant differences between the brains of male homosexuals and heterosexuals similar to the differences between female and male brains. My interpretation of the data is that it is far more nature than nurture.



Having males that are less physically aggressive and more likely to tolerate submission to "alpha" males would provide a necessary resource to larger groups/communities. In a civilized context such males have tended to channel their energies to more creative pursuits and appear to be better communicators than their heterosexual couterparts - traits that are very attractive in modern society.

Ok, apology excepted, if...
You don't really think blonds are dumb are you? [huh]


I don't have any problem with homosexuals. I just think it's sick they are bragging in it in public, as I think it is sick to do that as you are strate...

You know, I really get the feeling sometimes girls here are being indirectly treated as an object. I mean, another sort of thing or something... Why the hell is there an Infinite Females forum?! so the females among can say "Ha, you see, I'm a female and I'm educated!" ?! It's like saying from the beginning we are not expected to be.
Know what I mean? Think of it, it is kind of offensive.

Yours
~Infernity

Are you stupid or what?!

OK first, men can't be treated as object. Take for example um, ok girl who tries to rape a man.
I mean- he is not being used, he won't mind, he actually shall cooperate [:o]

Now, I demand you to change you f**ked up attitude to women Justin!
I swear I wish to see you are treating your girlfriend as an object so she'll knee you between your legs [ang]

It seems you really want to not get any respect from females, or are you just playing dumb?

~Infernity

Infernity, your typical, average IQ, sex-crazed male probably wouldn't mind being used for sex by a woman, at least if she's good looking. But I think you're being a little overly simplistic in assuming that all men would want it, that no man would feel used as an object. Sounds like we all have overly simplistic sexual stereotypes and prejudices we need to deal with, eh?

For anyone interested in sexuality studies I recommend the movie "Kinsey".



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/

One of the more (to me) surprising conclusion Kinsey makes is that everybody has a tendency towards homosexuality however small and insignificant. Bisexuality is common and probably more than most people realize ( Partly, I suspect, because it is taboo, especially amongst men ). Before watching this movie, and for most of my life I could never imagine having any attraction to the same sex. But after seeing it I started searching for it within me, and I can honestly say it is not as strange as I previously thought. Previously I found it odd to marvel at the beauty of another man, but this feels very natural to me now. Now, don't get me wrong, I am crazy about women, but I can se now why some men can be attracted to other men.


So, why is this thread in the catcher? It seems strange to me. If you cant take the heat just don't read it. Why should the sensitivity of some, restrict the discussion of others? I don't want to be thinking about who might or might not read what I am writing to this forum. That's just an impossible notion. For fuck sake, some 10 year old child might be reading this. Why should that be our responsibility? That's the responsibility of that child's parents. In some forums we are talking about brain surgery and cutting of heads for freezing. This thread is about sex ( or at least it has become ). Any child at any age should know about sex. IMO.

Did you read the whole thread Lightowl? I have no problem discussing sexuality in an honest and open manner, however the title of this thread, coupled with the substandard dialog and feuding, made it a prime candidate for the catcher.

Yes, I read the whole thread and I just read it again. I don't se what the problem is. If its the title, then I found that a good teaser and thought I was about to read a joke. I got some laughs and eventually found the thread quite interesting.

I though the catcher was for irrelevant or ad hominem posts. I think it would be better to remove the offending posts than to throw the whole thing in the "bin".

Hmm... "substandard dialog", I didn't know there was such a bar in threads other than CIRA.

Your opinion is duly noted. [thumb]

That's all I ask for

You can throw this post in the bin. Ah, never mind, its already there

Ah, I'm sorry Jay, this whole thing made me a little pissed off...

You know till I seriously considered going to the University next year, some of my mates kept telling blonds jokes to me.
The annoying thing is, when I had a smart thing to comment on it, they didn't bother listening, and always started another joke before I'll comment. I hate when people doesn't listen. Even if they would, they wouldn't try to comprehend.

Once I got myself to kick the so I call Devil-Boy. It hashed him for a while. A girl who beats up a boy like this heh, he had to shut up or the little secret would have been spread, you know, the little scare, everyone would know where it came from.

Another thing pissing me, girls are automatically weak, so *most* guys think. Nonsense, not if they do 10 pull-ups several times per day.

However, when they were told I am jumping a grade, they really couldn't find something to say. But they tried, oh they did. But everything that came out of their mouth was more stupid, I just laughed and they really felt stupid.

I know sometimes I better just shut up and ignore.
Those who know me, know I can't. I can't surrender, I must win. People start a game with me without me willing to. Winning means, they won't push in to it again.
I don't know when to shut up. Perhaps I do, I don't want to, that's not me.

Example, I told Susma I'll ignore him. Do you really think I didn't read his posts? How could I? It would have to be a really really really long post for me to success and not read it. Susma writes briefly. It was hard to not reply.

Weired to mention in my age, these mates doesn't think of blonds stupid anymore. I don't know if it's just me, but they think of it more hot as stupid. [glasses]
Hormones, I'm telling you...

I'm sorry, probably not interesting was it?

~Infernity

I have great respect for women, all that I am saying is that all men treat women as an object to some degree. Women also treat men like an object to some degree. That doesn't mean men treat women like crap, in fact a lot women like being treated like an object, if the man loves them.

To prove that I am not a tool, when I had my last crush I imagined my pillow at night was her cheek. [glasses]

Actually, I still do a that little. [huh]

Lightowl,

Yes, from what I have heard about 5% of men are completely gay and about 5% are completey straight, with about 90% of the population in-between or bisexual to some degree.

Just look at ancient Greece, a vast majority of the men were gay. It seems that sexuality is extremely culture centered. (Imagine that [tung] )

P.S.

Don't care about what 99% percent of teenagers have to say. [tung]

Edited by justinb, 27 June 2005 - 03:02 AM.

Infernity, we're glad to have you, never doubt that. You are hopefully an harbinger of times to come. You're very intelligent and open to new ideas, even one's that go against the grain of society. We need more people like that.

I agree with in you part, LO. It is not our responsibility if a child came wondering across our site, we do have a responsibility however, towards people we know are going to read these posts. Since BJ made it clear that it is fine for a 14 year old teenager to become a member, then I think we have a responsibility towards her to conduct ourselves in an appropriate manner. Would you discuss sex acts with such abandon in front of someone's 14 year old daughter? I don't think so. I was horrified when Karomesis was making his tastes public.

Some taboos are there for reasons that transcend social enlightenment. If you are blessed with a child, one day, I hope you will understand.

The details I have about every member of this forum is limited to say the least. If I where to make considerations to everybody's feelings and quirks it would be impossible for me to proceed. When I write to forums I write to whom ever that concerns. I don't familiarize myself with every potential reader. I don't even know 10 people in flesh well enough to know if they can stand what I might say at any given time. How should I be able to make that judgment about 100+ full members not to mention all the Basic members ImmInst have. I am sure you would agree that this is an impossible task.

It is my opinion that when one enter a discussion it is ones own responsibility. If you are horrified by something you read then refrain from reading further. If you think the forum might expose you to potentially horrifying ideas then don't enter the forum. The fact that BJ has given his OK to 14 your old teenagers should not require members to drop to any pre-perceived level of consideration IMO. If I had a child and I did not want that child to read/see certain things I would not allow for risks of that exposure. Or I would at least minimize the risk. Would you let your child read these forums?

Taboos are in my opinion just a popularity restriction of ideas. Popular censorship if you will. I am happy to not have any taboos ( that I know of ). That makes me feel free regardless of any social limitations.

Justin, ok I don't think you are familiar pf what truthful respect is...
Maybe you should be treated the same so perhaps you might get what I mean. And when I say treated the same I don't mean like the exactly same since I can put money on that you won't resist if I'll use you [mellow] .
But I do mean, that finding your points of weakness that are matching for example mine in their weak level and treat them the same level of disrespect as to how I feel treated...

Now as for what you wrote to Lightowl,
I Hope you don't take me as a teenager, because I'll tell you what I think. I think most men are strait.
Most guys doesn't even know how to judge a males looks, that's pitiful.


Ah Jay thanks, you really are a good friend [!] Thank you...

Harold, is being a member is only over 14?!?! [:o]
OOPS I joined when I was still 13 [tung]
Isn't it over 12?
Hehe.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Well, It means that your age are in the teens ( 13-19 ). Intellectually I regard you at a higher level than most teenagers, but emotionally you are probably closer to what most teenagers experience. No offence. I don't really know you well enough to make that judgment anyway.


What I was trying to say was its not that black and white. I take that the word strait means no bisexual attraction at all, and Gay means "As gay as they get" The reality is that most people are somewhere between those extremes. If you ask most teenagers they will not know what they are, but they will probably say they are NOT GAY due to social pressure and uncertainty.

To lightowl:

You said;
"What I was trying to say was its not that black and white. I take that the word strait means no bisexual attraction at all, and Gay means "As gay as they get" The reality is that most people are somewhere between those extremes. If you ask most teenagers they will not know what they are, but they will probably say they are NOT GAY due to social pressure and uncertainty."

I do not know where you get you facts from. Is there some research that support what you are saying? I think you are wrong, that is just my opinion. I know for damn sure I do not find any male attractive, well, sexuallly attractive; Me like the opposite sex, me like the opposites sex alot and only. Proving that what you are saying above is reality, I am at the extreme heterosexual side. Once again some proof would be nice if you could provide it. I am not picking on you lightowl, just questioning what you said.
[8)]

Lightowl, um what's your name again? :\

I'm 14 now.
However, heh I don't think you know me enough to judge my mentality, you have no idea what sort of things I'm dealing with...
Um, I actually doubt anyone really knows me [8)]

Well I think after all an intelligent thing is to control emotions by logic and not letting them control your logic. Once you realize that things are ok .

Thank you anyway, well I believe I do control my words [":)] . Perhaps I shouldn't reveal this, it is a useful tool to blame feelings, heh well, I'll have to be more persuasive next time.
And after and after... Which means, you can never know me [mellow] heh .

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

The fact that you do not find any male attractive does not invalidate my point that most people have bisexual tendencies at various degrees. It is a known fact revealed by Kinsey's research published in 1948/1953.

http://www.indiana.e...y/publications/

If you don't want to read the research then I recommend watching the movie which largely revolves around this finding.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/

Exactly what I said. I can only know what you have written in these forums, which is not nearly enough to know you.


See my signature