Furthermore I have NEVER heard of anyone at all having a problem with a hot gay woman!

In my mind (and I am very open to be swayed here since I have never spent all that much time pondering the subject) the difference is that heterosexual relations are what you see in the rest of the natural world. AFAIK there are no animals that have homosexual relations as a norm (if at all?). If I am wrong on this and there are more than a handful of cases of this I will reconsider my viewpoint.

I also have no problem with civil libertries for gay couples. Im guessing the only people that do are those who practice organized religion.

Thor, do you have your sisters permission to post that?

zing

Never go home lonely!

Just because it isnt the norm doesnt mean it isnt natural. I think most mammal populations have a percentage which is bisexual/gay.

Ignoring the obvious baby making function, there is no fundamental difference between the two. Both are very fun, pleasurable activities. Homosexual behavior has been observed in almost 1500 species so far. So a lot of animals are enjoying this activity just as a lot of animals are enjoying the heterosexual version. These observations in nature have completely obliterated the common religious fundamentalist pablum, "homosexuality is unnatural" argument. Although no evidence was really needed to undermine that baseless assertion since "unnatural" doesn't even mean anything. If something exists in this universe it is natural by definition.

As far as I can see, the only thing that separates homosexual and heterosexual relations from bestiality is consent. If animals could consent in a convincing way then bestiality would be another morally accepted route to experience pleasure just like h0mo/hetero.

It shouldn't be a problem, nor should it be a problem for a brother and sister to hook up, or mother and son, father and daughter, etc, as long as all parties are consenting adults. This is what I call the "Mind your own ****ing business" moral dictum.

dude, this is the OOTcereusREGthread, not the science forum, gtfo

Exactly!

It's tempting to assume life would be twice as pleasurable given that my options just doubled, but I think it would likely be many times more pleasurable than that.

1) Guys put out more which means my sexual activity would likely more than double.

2) I don't have to deal with boring girls holding sex over my head because I have more options so my sexual frustrations and overall annoyance factor would drop precipitously.

3) Basically an extension of 2): Given that I have more options I'm more likely to form a truly meaningful relationship instead of wasting my time "putting pussy on a pedestal" simply because of the scarcity issue.

Honestly, I don't see how any rational guy would not take this bisexual pill.

if you just want sex all the time being bisexual is just fine. If you're looking for relationships, it's no good.

That is the main difference that I've seen between gay men and women...gay men (in general, not all of them) seem to want sex, gay women want a relationship. Sadness for you nina.

BTW, welcome to our lovely thread....it's the best one on the site. Now, please stay off of CEREUS. The games are terrible.

I think it's possible to have our cake and eat it too here. You're implying that a relationship must be monogamous in order to be successful and I don't buy it. There certainly isn't any convincing evidence backing up the monogamous model. Last time I checked the divorce rate was around 50%. Estimates of cuckoldry in the U.S. range from 13-20%, and we'll never know how high infidelity rates are since humans will never be truthful on these surveys. Monogamy simply doesn't work and too many people suffer unnecessary guilt because they can't live up to this impossible standard. Why doesn't monogamy work? Simply put, humans are not designed to be monogamous.

The fact is humans are naturally polygamous creatures just like the vast majority of other animals on this planet. There is ample biological evidence supporting this claim but I won't go into that unless you ask me to. The only reason we have monogamy on the brain is because we've been brainwashed from birth to think it's a good idea. Whether it be my hypothetical bisexual scenario or my real life heterosexual one, my future ideal relationship will be with someone who understands the pitfalls of monogamy who is willing to embrace the virtue of "extra-pair copulation" in our loving partnership. Swingers unite!

Ok I stand corrected

Scratch my homosexuality=beastiality thoughts

See palo, that wasnt that hard


I was also under the impression that we are one of maybe 2 or 3 animals that has sex for pleasure....it would seem if they are all having gay sex that I am wrong in that as well.

True or False?

In theory Im inclined to agree with you...however the jealousy factor comes into play I think most everyone here and that alone will prevent polygamy from working for those couples.

Though Im not sure if that jealousy comes from the brainwashing or is just our nature.

Well according to snopes the "only 2-3 animals have sex for pleasure" claim appears to be true. But in order to reach their conclusion they excluded homosexual and masturbatory activity from their definition of "sex for pleasure" which makes their analysis a joke imo.

Using the first definition of pleasure found at Dictionary.com: "the state or feeling of being pleased", I would argue that at least all sentient creatures have sex for pleasure. AFAIK, humans are the only animals on earth that are even aware that sex leads to offspring. If other animals aren't aware that sex leads to babies, then why are they having sex? I would say because they find it pleasurable. And the reason why they find it pleasurable is because, like us, they have been programed by billions of years of evolution to find sex pleasurable.

Imagine a continuum of sexual pleasure gradients and assume genetic variation in any life form population. Naturally some animals will carry genes that predispose them to like sex more than others, and thus they will be more likely to have sex and reproduce than others. Run this simulation for billions of years and you're gonna have a planet filled with sex-loving animals as we do today.

Now the next question that begs to be asked is, "Ok but what's the evolutionary explanation of homosexuality?" Wouldn't individuals predisposed towards homosexuality tend to weed themselves out over time since they're less likely to reproduce? To answer this question we first have to get a couple things straight (pun intended).

Number one, evolution isn't about the reproductive success of individuals, it's about the reproductive success of genes. Individuals are simply gene carrying vehicles. Individuals die off while genes are theoretically immortal.

Number two, thinking about homosexual men for a moment, don't think in terms of "gay genes", think in terms of "guy loving genes". While it is reasonable to assume that men who inherit these "guy loving genes" are more likely to be gay and less likely to reproduce, that is only half the story. Woman can inherit these "guy loving genes" too! Now we can formulate a testable hypothesis:

If these "guy loving genes" exist then female relatives of gay men should be reproductively more successful on average than females relatives of straight men due to the fact they that the former are more likely to carry the "guy loving gene" also. Such a study has been done and the results supported this hypothesis.

"Andrea Camperio-Ciani, a professor of ethology and evolutionary psychology at the University of Padua, interviewed 98 gay men and 100 straight men and found that the mothers of gay men had an average of 2.7 children, while the mothers of straight men averaged 2.3."

Now this doesn't explain the whole story. More evidence needs to be gathered before any strict conclusions can be drawn. I'm just trying to show you a plausible mechanism for how "gay genes" have been successful in the overall gene pool for probably hundreds of millions of years. Females carrying these genes make up the reproductive deficit of males carrying these genes. Assuming repeated studies show the same trend, then the paradox of why "gay genes" don't go extinct has effectively been solved.

Some good articles on this topic can be found here and here.

198...small sample imo...but your ideas are interesting.

I agree. Jealousy is a HUGE problem. I view jealousy as like an evolutionary hangover. While it once probably served it's purpose for ancient h0mo sapiens, it is now nothing but a nuisance for modern humans. A good analogy would be the appendix or the fight or flight response. Once useful, now dangerous. Evolution is ******ed. (No joke)

Yes the sample was small and was criticized in the articles. Hopefully some better studies will come out soon.

In other scientific news, today my sister woke me up with this text message:

"Scientists have discovered that all women will, at some point, contain intelligent DNA. Unfortunately, 95% of them will spit it out!!"

seriously though, lol

Hey don't forget that today's my sister's birthday. If you want to increase your chances of having sex with her from

.00000000000000000000000001 to
.0000000000000000000000001

You better send her that obligatory myspace message.

This is more of a NC/LC CEREUS thread, but go ahead and ask a question or make a comment regarding poker. Surprisingly you will get responses.

Couldn't let this go without bringing up, the costume was a product of my weird creativity.

Thoughts on 'don_key_sr' plz?

Seemed solid in my short session vs him

And "SwollmyRoll" is a knob

any runners in UBOC LHE?

late reg still available ATM