More Than A Penis
At Details, sex columnists Em & Lo claim there's a trend of guys increasingly rejecting booty calls. Hmmm. Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just part of the continuing trend in media to come up with trends. Em & Lo write that guys are rejecting booty calls because...as the subhead says, it "seems they've got feelings too":
Ben, a 30-year-old account manager in Cleveland, says that in his twenties he used to screw "like it was shaking someone's hand," but now, he says, he's had it with sleeping around. "To do that consistently over a long period of time," he says, "you really have to be emotionless, like a robot." Ben came to loathe the ambiguity of casual sex. "After going out a few times with this one woman, she let me know we'd be better off as friends--but two days later, we're having sex for the first time," he grouses. "It's like, Where are we now?"Feeling vulnerable, that's where. "It's hard to have casual sex without getting emotionally involved," says Ben, who occasionally goes so far in his just-say-no approach as to abandon a girl at a crowded bar when he senses an impending hook-up. "Eventually, one of you is going to get involved. And in my experience, it seems to be me."
Vulnerability is hardly the only reason a guy might take a rain check. Maybe he doesn't want a gift that keeps on giving. "The number of women who will just sit on a condom-free, erect penis without any kind of announcement or discussion is just shocking," says "Isaac," a 33-year-old L.A. artist who recently finished a one-year sabbatical from casual sex. (Some names in this story have been changed.) "They would just go for it: no latex, no discussion of STDs, not even 'It's okay--I'm on the pill.' Dude!"
Isaac says he won't have sex with someone he's not emotionally attached to. He once walked away from a no-brainer--when a "gorgeous" former student "told me she sucks really good dick"--because he felt he couldn't be giving, as he was emerging from a bad break-up. Another time, turned off by a former lingerie model's excessively dental oral technique and her weird pillow talk, Isaac did the unthinkable: "I just pulled on my pants and made a run for it--out the door, down the steps, onto the street, and into the car."
When a guy hangs up on a booty call, he might be responding to simple biology. "As men age, the refractory period, or the interval between when they are physically ready for sex, gets longer, so they might not be as easily stimulated," says Jean Elson, a University of New Hampshire sociologist who studies voluntary abstinence. Harry Fisch, the author of The Male Biological Clock, says, "Testosterone starts to decrease at age 30"--so your sex drive decreases as your spare tire inflates.
I think it's a largely a question of age and timing. "Grownups" get their panties in a bunch over teens and college kids hooking up, but I don't think it's a big deal. For a lot of people, there's a time in their life when they aren't ready for a relationship, so they run around and have a lot of casual sex. When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one. No biggie, really.
Well, when you think about it, anytime a man initiates a breakup with a woman without another sex partner available, he's "rejecting a booty call". A lot of them. But almost all men do that sooner or later.
Still, the article shows only anecdotes, not evidence of a trend. And the quoted men sound a bit too metrosexual. I turned down a fair number of pretty women back in the day (I was a tall and fairly handsome youth), but vulnerability was never the issue in the sense used here. On several occasions I was just thrown when they would come on to me. I was a bit geeky and come ons from women were apparently less common thirty years ago.
AlamedaMike at July 20, 2010 1:25 AM
Here's a good argument against casual sex: PATERNITY.
mpetrie98 at July 20, 2010 1:29 AM
"so they run around and have a lot of casual sex. When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one. No biggie, really."
No biggie, really, except condoms aren't foolproof against disease, much less pregnancy. Diseases can also be transmitted from oral sex, and since Gen Y doesn't seem to bother much with condoms for sex, do you think they bother with oral sex protection? My former neighbor (great guy) died of AIDS. He was fine, then he wasn't, and it was not a good way to go. Yes, he was gay, and the hetero rate of transmission is very low, but having seen that I'd NEVER risk it knowingly (meaning, having sex with someone who's activities you know nothing about)
momof4 at July 20, 2010 5:34 AM
There are lots of STDs out there, some of which are incurable.
I see that New York is trying to keep the guy who deliberately infected 13 women with HIV behind bars, but I doubt he's the only one. You can have it all. You cannot necessarily have it all without consequences.
MarkD at July 20, 2010 5:38 AM
Amy, I enjoy reading your work. It always shows thought and a dose of rational thought.
That said, you are not above making the occasional daft comment.
This column is one.
"No Biggie?"
What are you thinking?
Maybe in your, urban, commitment free world of Casual (and not-so-casual) hooking up this is true.
I don't think so, however.
For the largest chunk at the middle of the bellcurve, it requires emotional connection to allow sex. It may not be as large a connection as needed to sustain a marriage, but none-the-less a connection must be made. Men need a reason too.
I can see how our sex obsessed world is slowly killing the ability to build the bonds needed to sustain lifetime commitment.
So, in my opinion, it is a Big Deal!
I think you are wrong to dismiss objections as prudery.
I also think that there comes an age (for most folks) when being "hip" and "cool" needs to give way to being a grown up.
Hip folks think "Hookin' up" is just swell.
Grown ups see it as yet another dead canary.
WE need our culture to survive.
Hook Up Culture is not a long term cultural survival strategy.
Thomas at July 20, 2010 6:07 AM
To grossly overgeneralize, men going further into their 20s and 30s can afford to be more picky. A lot of elgible males have already married off and the ones who are left have managed to become a little less oafish.
As a result, they know a little voluntary dry spell isn't going to turn into six months without sex. When your fridge is full, you're not going to bother eating that piece of toast that's fallen onto the floor.
kevin_m at July 20, 2010 6:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/20/more_than_a_pen.html#comment-1734419">comment from ThomasHook Up Culture is not a long term cultural survival strategy.
It's a short-term sexual strategy. People come of age much later these days, and come of age sexually probably around when they always did. Why should people who aren't ready for relationships push themselves into them?
P.S. It's unrealistic to expect people to become abstinent until their mid-to-late 20s, when I see many people becoming ready for relationships and when I became ready myself.
Amy Alkon at July 20, 2010 6:22 AM
Speaking as a 30-year old man who's had his fair share of booty calls, casual sex and general adventures, I've reached the point where I've realized it's just not worth it anymore.
It's not worth the worry over fathering a child with a woman I barely know or contracting an STD, it's not worth the hurt feelings and guilt when one of us (usually her) has different expectations, it's not worth the often middling sex, and it's definitely not worth the drama and the stress of dealing with the usually unstable mental state of the kind of woman who's willing to sleep with a guy she just met/barely knows/doesn't really care about.
Sometimes I miss the excitement, but after 15 years of that excitement, I've come to realize that it's much more fun having often spectacular (and never middling) sex with a woman I love and know and respect.
Tom at July 20, 2010 6:35 AM
Amy:
I read the Details article. Although some things ring true about the piece, most of it seems highly contrived. I got the impression that the authors have done some serious cherry-picking to come up with this "trend." Guys just don't behave that way. If a noticeable number of them did, I think their behavior would have such far reaching effects that your average city dweller would have picked up on this by now.
Along those lines, a quick question. Are there any advice columnists that you suspect make up their questions? If there were it would be almost impossible to catch them, no? It's not like there's anyone looking over their shoulders, and God knows, they must be under a great deal of pressure to generate fresh content to meet deadlines. Or do popular advice columnists field so many interesting questions that there's no need to fabricate?
Jamie B. at July 20, 2010 7:11 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/20/more_than_a_pen.html#comment-1734436">comment from Jamie B.I think people in the media in general make up trends. Sometimes those trends are real; for example, I notice a lot of people you wouldn't expect getting on Facebook these days. There's a researcher -- probably 65-plus, and British -- whose work I'm using in my next book. I looked for him on Facebook, and friended him, and he and I exchanged some correspondence (he sent me some blog items I needed to see), and I ended up recommending him as a speaker for an annual conference I attend. He'd be great, and sent a follow-up e-mail to the organizer with details on himself. The thing is, I never would've thought of him for the conference had I not found him on Facebook and had the exchange with him. Cool!
Amy Alkon at July 20, 2010 7:33 AM
>>Ben, a 30-year-old account manager in Cleveland, says that in his twenties he used to screw "like it was shaking someone's hand,"
Boy, I bet the ladies remember those sessions with Ben. Not.
Jody Tresidder at July 20, 2010 7:46 AM
I think it's a largely a question of age and timing. "Grownups" get their panties in a bunch over teens and college kids hooking up, but I don't think it's a big deal. For a lot of people, there's a time in their life when they aren't ready for a relationship, so they run around and have a lot of casual sex. When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one. No biggie, really.
------------------------------------------------
I think it's actually a question of emotional maturity. Not all chronilogical "grown ups" are actually emotionally mature and may never be. Some people suffer from arrested development there whole lives.
People who have sex but are emotionally immature or fall in the arrested development category can have many consequences of "casual sex."
Many emotionally immature men and women become emotionally fractured because they become emotionally attached in their "casual sex" participation. Also they do not protect themselves from "accidental" pregnancies, STD'S, and become involved in relationship drama. Only two "emotionally mature" adults can probably have "casual sex" and no one will get hurt.
Two emotionally mature adults who find themselves in a casual sex situation where neither party gets hurt is the exception and not the rule.
David M. at July 20, 2010 8:06 AM
Pffft. As a teenaged guy I turned down sex with female classmates who were almost certainly going to double-down on the stalking behavior they exhibited even before we went on a *date*, let alone had sex. And then there were the ones looking for some fun apart from their jealously-crazy boyfriends. Some gals were just too creepy to have sex with, no matter how hot they were.
(Guys, you know what it means to say "no" to sex with a smiling, eager 17 year old girl while you are a boozed-up 17 year old male. Damn. It hurts just to remember.)
And I watched buddies deal with the fallout from having sex with gals they shouldn't have. You quickly learn to start being picky about the matter, after seeing the consequences.
On the lower end of the consequences, you see some guy have to deal with a few months of angry, bitter gals (the sex partner and all her friends) deriding him in common social networks using increasingly hostile, personal language, because the buddy will not give some sort of post-coital commitment to the woman. At the other end of the consequences scale, there is the false rape accusation thrown out into the social network, and occasionally, to local or campus police.
This is to say nothing of 18+ years of child support that could be extracted from one night of sex. That can be one pricey night. And good luck with visitation, let alone custody, if you are an umarried, young man. Axe-grinding "social workers" infest the legal system, just waiting for a young man's untutored, unsophisticated, very sincere attempts to show he could be a good father, if given a chance. Good luck, boys...
So, yeah, if guys are at all with it, they will pass on some women willing to have sex with them. Our culture is not structured to get men clear of the affair if the men are not into the gals beyond the one night. So why risk the social, legal, economic and emotional fallout that could await if the gal decides--and she often has multiple post-sex decision points--the social, legal or economic relationship must continue, solely on her terms?
I am not wild-eyed men's rights activist, but I do take young teen males I know well aside at about 16 and tell them the way it is, and caution them to be really, really careful. As a young man, you have no idea what kind of crazy sh-t is seething beneath a stranger's skull. That stranger may be into just a little "no-strings" fun, or she may be a life-killer.
Same advice can be given to young gals, and it should be.
Spartee at July 20, 2010 8:20 AM
>>I am not wild-eyed men's rights activist, but I do take young teen males I know well aside at about 16 and tell them the way it is, and caution them to be really, really careful.
That's cool, Spartee.
I am not a wild-eyed MRA either. In fact, I'm a liberal feminist broad - and we cautioned our teenage sons long and loud about 18 years of garnished wages as the potential payback for making a poor choice one giddy night.
In fact, our youngest son once got indignant - and said if he DID make such a mistake, he'd pay up willingly, because he'd never let a child of his suffer.
And we had to point out - but what if you THEN met the girl of your dreams who wanted kids with you? You'd be in no position to help support the family you wanted.
And our sweet son said: "Oh, I hadn't thought of that!"
(God, teenage males!)
Jody Tresidder at July 20, 2010 8:37 AM
Hm... I remember "casual" sex... only I always had some sort of friendship with the guy. "Friends with benefits" as they used to say. We knew each other well enough to know who each other went around with and when it was time to call it quits because one or the other got involved in a more formal relationship, there were no hard feelings. I guess I was fortunate in having such male friends that I could trust and who trusted me.
"When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one."
Or a relationship finds them. I definitely wasn't looking for it when my now-husband found me. ;-)
Lunamoth at July 20, 2010 8:41 AM
Lunamoth, you beat me to it. I don't think that most Americans in their 20s and 30s today believe that sex should be reserved solely for a loving, committed relationship, but that's a far cry from thinking it's cool to go around swapping bodily fluids with any warm body in the place.
You find a friend who's also not looking for anything serious and you become FWB or fuck buddies or whatever you want to call it. If one of you starts to develop an emotional bond (and it's usually the woman), you should end the sexual part of the relationship. If both of you feel that way, you redifine the relationship and become a couple. I had a nine year relationship that started as just fucking.
Beth at July 20, 2010 8:57 AM
"For a lot of people, there's a time in their life when they aren't ready for a relationship, so they run around and have a lot of casual sex. When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one. No biggie, really."
No biggie? Come on, Amy! You of all people should know that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I think you've made yourself a "wish sandwich" with this one.
Sure, someone can always go look for a relationship when they a) are diseased, b) have a child, c) are emotionally jaded, d) are all of the above.
And who in their right mind would select a veteran "hook-up" artist to settle down with? I'll pass, thanks!
Jay R at July 20, 2010 9:02 AM
"Here's a good argument against casual sex: PATERNITY."
I'll see your paternity, and raise you one vasectomy.
Steve Daniels at July 20, 2010 9:08 AM
Amy, are you going to do a companion piece: "More than a wet hole." ?
Jay R at July 20, 2010 9:10 AM
yeah, I'm voting for the whole thing being made up. "like shaking hands."
WHO would use a colloquialism like that to describe shagging? Someone who never said it... these just don't ring true, EVEN IF the situations could be.
Since when is being choosy a "rejection of booty call"? What rings the most hollow is the colorful emotional language to describe what is going on in the guys head. IMHO it doesn't sound like the language of any guy I've ever known, including myself.
On the other claw... as you get a bit more experienced, you have reasons to not just throw down with anyone... It can get a little tiring, perhaps even boring. Esp. when you realize the stakes are higher. "Cheap Lovers make expensive Wives." Hunter's instinct says that anyone who wants a roll in the hay without protecting herself is either that way with everyone, or has some reason beyond a quicky with you. Most of us have even met one or two women like that, hopefully we learned from the encounter.
No, for drunks, all bets are off naturally, since beer goggles make you see lotsa stuff that's not there...
I think the whole article is a backhanded slam on what is percieved that guys never feel, and so it's somehow odd when they do. As if maybe someone was projecting that.
SwissArmyD at July 20, 2010 9:29 AM
The only thing I see from this article and the whole "hooking-up" thing is an indifference to trust. A relationship is built on trust. Trust comes from consistency between what a person says and what they do. Survival sex and the consequences (baby maybe) would require that trust be built before sex.
Evolution could not quite make that sex/trust relationship strong enough to create complete monogamy. The fun part of sex is stronger in some males and females. They find each other and do the deed, mindless for a moment of the cultural repercussions if caught. Some cultures, though, tolerate this or even encourage the outside relationships. Inuit visitors were encouraged to provide new genes to the limited pool in isolated villages. (If you believe "Nanook of the North (1922)," this sex was accompanied by a lot of giggling.)
In other words: Lack of trust would prevent any sexual contact. Trust would mean a relationship, and I believe, would not be considered a hook-up. Therefore these short events just suggest a indifference to each other and meaningless but pleasurable(?) sex.
On another hand: I'm sorry that the participants of these quick poke fests are missing the most fun part of sex: anticipation. This is that period where the partners develop an interest by flirting, heavy breathing, and digital satisfaction. You (the much younger generation) are missing all that when the only decision on the first encounter is "blow-job or intercourse." I don't think I am being judgmental, just saying that having dessert first for every meal isn't really that satisfying in the long run.
Dan Derrick at July 20, 2010 11:06 AM
"I'm sorry that the participants of these quick poke fests are missing the most fun part of sex: anticipation."
Dan Derrick, I am betting the younger crowd, like every generation before them, is finding their sex to be plenty interesting, and they do not need a lot of talk from older folks about what they are doing wrong or missing out on.
Conversely, I am sure they think, like every generation before them, that they discovered passion and sex, and that they are doing it better and more often than any generation ever has.
In short, they (generally) don't need our pity about their twenty-something, tight-bodied sex lives, and we don't need to hear from them about this new thing called "sex" they just discovered, which we surely overlooked when we were 20.
Spartee at July 20, 2010 11:21 AM
"Boy, I bet the ladies remember those sessions with Ben. Not."
Exactly, Jody. But that's a feature, not a bug.
Jim at July 20, 2010 1:00 PM
>> "Here's a good argument against casual sex: PATERNITY."
> I'll see your paternity, and raise you one vasectomy.
Another.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 20, 2010 1:05 PM
To Jody: Great speech you gave your son!
I'd suggest showing him the two or so good websites on male birth control. (Search on "male contraception" and you'll get both of them in the first three results.) But....even if he does get a good contraceptive method that he can't forget to use, such as Pro-Vas, tell him not to tell any girl (at first) that he's using it, lest she accuse him of lying just to get out of using condoms. (Not to mention it would sound pretty damn weird to her even if she believed him - why would he get the device before he even started dating, after all? She might assume he's a control freak at best.)
Later, if she decides she wants to stop using condoms and wants to make sure both of them are healthy, THAT would be the time to tell her he's using Pro-Vas.
lenona at July 20, 2010 1:12 PM
Em & Lo must be clueless women. Guys do not turn down women for sex. Period.
Secondly, there is no guy (except celebreties) so attractive that women come on to him a lot and easily. I was young and hot (okay, in the roller-disco era) and it was usually a chore to get women into bed. Well, usually.
That said, sex is great and I hope these young guys are getting laid every night with a new girl.
BOTU at July 20, 2010 1:40 PM
Spartee: And so the wheel turns. I pontificate (as an experienced oldster) and you (as an apologist for youth) complain, thus playing out the natural order of life. lol
Dan Derrick
Dan Derrick at July 20, 2010 1:41 PM
@Steve Daniels: I can see myself in the Doctor's office now: I would like a vasectomy, please, so that I can b*ng some hot broads, whose names I barely know, without looking back!
mpetrie98 at July 20, 2010 2:55 PM
As for paterntiy, remember that girls have three holes. Shoot in only two of them.
BOTU at July 20, 2010 3:48 PM
Heeeee'sss baaaaccckkk...
Feebie at July 20, 2010 4:04 PM
The only thing that might possibly be a trend is the bit about unprotected sex. It's like the seventies out there right now. It just really blows my mind, bc I have friends who are living with HIV. It's not just the women, but the men too who are ready to go camping without a sleeping bag. What's up with that?
@BOTU: Bwahahahahaha! You're ridiculous!
Gspotted at July 20, 2010 5:06 PM
Secondly, there is no guy (except celebreties) so attractive that women come on to him a lot and easily. I was young and hot (okay, in the roller-disco era) and it was usually a chore to get women into bed. Well, usually.
In between being your usual charming self BOTU, you've actually made a good point. I've never seen men so hot that they were really beating off women with the proverbial stick. It's still mostly the guys that initiate it, it's just that some are better at spotting those who might be interested, better at making it happen, and crucially better at moving on (Next!) when it doesn't happen.
Ltw at July 20, 2010 8:05 PM
In my case - I am not interested in taking care of what a woman wants. When I was youung and just wanted to get laid I was sure that giving a woman her pleasure comes first and my own pleasure comes after that.
Now at 47 I can have sex whenever I want and I do not bother about the ladies' wishes. Now I will have sex on my terms only, will do only what I want and what I like, so as soon as some possible partner starts discussing what she would want in bed from me, I politely decline the whole affair.
The overall amount of my sex grows though, because sex for me is not a chore (like for most of the men I know or read about), doing thing that I like helps to keep my libido growing still.
Me at July 20, 2010 8:25 PM
I think it's a largely a question of age and timing... For a lot of people, there's a time in their life when they aren't ready for a relationship, so they run around and have a lot of casual sex. When they tire of hooking up, and they're ready for a relationship, they go look for one. No biggie, really.
------------------------------------------------
Unless you never grow up.
Compulsive promiscuity is the norm in the gay "community". It's been well documented for decades - since McWhirter and Matheson in the 70s.
The compulsion is so strong that it overwhelms the demands of intimacy - most gay relationships are sexually open perforce, and don't last more than 18-24 months. The Dutch Ministry of Health found that gays in "committed relationships" had AT LEAST 20 sexual "partners" a year, and in some years the "committed" gays were the primary vector for AIDS transmission.
Again - gays do not EVER outgrow this, and go on to build mature, truly intimate relationships. They just settle for less action when age decreases their value in the meat market.
These are the patterns of behavior that led Freud and all other major psychologists to describe homosexuality as an arrested adolescence.
Mark D. inadvertently describes this to a T when he expanded on your "age and timing" thing:
I think it's actually a question of emotional maturity. Not all chronological "grown ups" are actually emotionally mature and may never be. Some people suffer from arrested development there whole lives.
People who have sex but are emotionally immature or fall in the arrested development category can have many consequences of "casual sex."
Many emotionally immature men and women become emotionally fractured because they become emotionally attached in their "casual sex" participation. Also they do not protect themselves from "accidental" pregnancies, STD'S, and become involved in relationship drama.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
...so if it's emotional immaturity when straights act like this for too long... why is it OK for gays to do it all their lives, and with even more abandon?
It's a dysfunction, not a lifestyle option.
Ben David at July 21, 2010 1:10 PM
"These are the patterns of behavior that led Freud and all other major psychologists to describe homosexuality as an arrested adolescence."
Fortunately, we all have the tools to do more than just believe the first old guy we can quote.
Go on your favorite search engine, type in the term, "androgen insensitivity", and prepare to throw any opinion about choice being the determining factor in homosexuality in the toilet, where it belongs.
Do your research.
Radwaste at July 21, 2010 2:51 PM
So what you're saying, Rad, is that homosexuality is a birth defect?
Good to know.
brian at July 21, 2010 3:03 PM
"Compulsive promiscuity is the norm in the gay "community". It's been well documented for decades - since McWhirter and Matheson in the 70s."
Let's stereotype about Jews for a while, Ben David. How would you like that? Let's start off with world finance and control of the media.....
Jim at July 21, 2010 3:06 PM
Radwaste:
Do your research.
- - - - - - - - - -
Heh.
The incidence of AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome) is 1 in 20,000.
Out-n-proud gays are around 2 percent of the population.
Nice try though - a decade ago the activists latched onto the Maternal Immune Hypothesis, which also didn't pan out.
Neither do twin studies, which yield abysmally low correlation rates for homosexuality now that this question is added to larger-scale studies.
Keep hammering - the main point of Big Lie propaganda is to never let up.
Despite all evidence that homosexuality is dysfunctional, compulsive behavior.
Jim:
Let's stereotype about Jews for a while
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sure - if you'll cite evidence that Jews control world finance.
My conclusions about homosexuality come from hard data, published by peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Especially studies from the Health Departments of Amdsterdam, London, New York, San Fran - in other words, the doctors who have to clean up the human mess caused by "progressive" activists.
Ben David at July 21, 2010 4:27 PM
"My conclusions about homosexuality come from hard data, published by peer-reviewed scientific journals. "
I'll just be charitable and say that you are pushing your data too far to support your conclusions. And since your stated beliefs tend to cast doubt on your objectivity, you'll have to do better than that.
Jim at July 22, 2010 11:05 AM
Jim is just Mr. Smooth:
I'll just be charitable and say that you are pushing your data too far to support your conclusions.
- - - - - - - - -
I'll be happy to cite details about any of the following statements:
Twin Studies prove the exact opposite of what the gay lobby claims, with correlations of only 20 percent in large-scale surveys.
Genetic Markers - none found. The Human genome's been mapped. B-bye!
Hormonal Influences - none found.
Birth Order - no correlation found.
Compulsive Promiscuity - numerous cites from every major gay mecca, confirming that this is the norm.
Depression, Substance Abuse, Suicide continues to occur at 4-5 time the normal rate, even in gay-friendly Europe.
... of course, you won't take me up any any of these - because your post is a classic PC sidestep: Condescending rhetorical flourish - then back away quickly.
Ben David at July 22, 2010 12:59 PM
Genetic Markers - none found. The Human genome's been mapped. B-bye!
Why no gene therpy to enhnce breast or penis size? Or to whip out cancer? If the cause and effect of every gene is known then why are we still unable to scan for EVERY genetic malformation in utero?
Hormonal Influences - none found.
None found doesnt mean none exists. The cause of gravity has yet to be found
Birth Order - no correlation found.
Cites? Because I've seen news perorts which say there is a correlation
Compulsive Promiscuity - numerous cites from every major gay mecca, confirming that this is the norm.
Promiscuity is the norm for men. Not just gay men. If women said yes as often as guys strait men would be fucking as often. Complusive is a nice twist. So apperntly gay people can never say no tothe offer of sex?
Depression, Substance Abuse, Suicide continues to occur at 4-5 time the normal rate, even in gay-friendly Europe.
What is the 'normal' rate? and how is its peramiters defined? Because all men have depression abuse problems an suicide in far greater numbers then women
You say homosexuality s a choice. SO I'll ask you again, even though you ALWAYS REFUSE it answer this simple question.
When and why did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
lujlp at July 22, 2010 4:29 PM
... and luj brings us full circle with this gem:
Promiscuity is the norm for men. Not just gay men. If women said yes as often as guys strait men would be fucking as often.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
This in an thread based on article showing that many men don't fit the lothario profile.
Nice symmetry there!
The rest of it betrays the dreadfully misunderstood science that underpins many "progressive" opinions:
If the cause and effect of every gene is known
We know that most genes are not light switches. There are very few 1-to-1 correlations. But we DO know that no significant genetic sequence is found uniquely among gay people.
Regarding hormonal influence:
None found doesnt mean none exists
Well, no.
None found means there are no significant hormonal differences between gays and straights. Just as there are no significant differences in brain structure.
Birth Order:
I've seen news reports which say there is a correlation
... and I believe the lamestream media on this issue just like I believe them on global warming. It's always "tantalizing evidence which may suggest that" - but when you check the original peer-reviewed study, there's nothing there.
So why don't YOU provide a cite, mkay?
Promiscuity:
Complusive is a nice twist. So apperntly gay people can never say no to the offer of sex?
Compulsive means a behavior overrides the person's explicitly declared values, goals and wishes.
So when gays swear up and down that they just want to get married - but gay "communities" consist of bars-n-baths, and almost all gay relationships are perforce open to other sexual partners - yes, that is compulsive behavior. The psychotic, dysfunctional need for more partners overrides the values of intimacy and real relationships that people claim to want.
Depression, Substance Abuse, Suicide:
What is the 'normal' rate?
The rate in the other 98 percent of the population. The rate in the gay "community" for all these is 4-5 times the rate in the general population - the same profile that convinced the APA to classify anorexia as a dysfunction.
Winding up with the ever-nonsensical:
When and why did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?
The same time I chose not to be a bulimic, psychotic, rapist, or murderer.
Dysfunction has nothing to do with choice.
The gay rights movement uses the "born-that-way" lie to deflect moral judgment. But I'm perfectly willing to admit that gays don't choose to be dysfunctional - any more than drunks or anorexics do.
That still doesn't mean what they're doing is normal or healthy.
Ben David at July 23, 2010 4:31 AM
So, let me get this right. Using the fact that this blog thread is about a news article which interviewed SIX men out of THREE BILLION for less than 100 words between them. You say I cant have it both ways in saying heteros want sex as much as homos, you come up with this gem?
We know that most genes are not light switches. There are very few 1-to-1 correlations. But we DO know that no significant genetic sequence is found uniquely among gay people.
Talk about wanting it both ways
If you acknowledge that every function and interaction with every gene is not yet understood, then why do you hold to the notion of an entire sequence for gay poeple?
And heres another both ways gem
The same time I chose not to be a bulimic, psychotic, rapist, or murderer.
Dysfunction has nothing to do with choice
So, dysfunction not being a choice, you "CHOSE" not to be dysfunctonal?
Your rambling self controdictory post seems to point to a serious dysfunction in reasoning skills
Shall we move on to the meat of your argument sandwiched between the crazy?
None found means there are no significant hormonal differences between gays and straights. Just as there are no significant differences in brain structure
And yet with most major psychatic disorders there are noticable strutural or hormonal differences, odd isnt it? Even in things as mild as depresion.
The rate in the other 98 percent of the population. The rate in the gay "community" for all these is 4-5 times the rate in the general population
The suicde rate of EVERY sub category of men is higher than the general poulation. By that reasoning being male in and of itself is a psychological disorder.
FYI as far as 'moral' judgment(a phrase with a definition which changes as often as the earth revolves around the sun) and compulsive promiscuity. Arent you a member of a religion whos patriarch, long line of decendants and most notable rulers had many wives plus concubines to screw? And given the number of children most of them produced, dont you think the promiscuity angle is a bit hypocritical? Have you read the song of soloman? That thing is more graphic then most of the porn I've seen.
Any other arguments?
lujlp at July 23, 2010 7:03 AM
I'm past 50 now, and was a teen/young adult at the time the gay revolution was gathering momentum, and it was starting to be talked about on TV, circa 1977 or so. I've met quite a few gay men over the years (but not many lesbians). Rather than cite studies, I'm chipping in with my observations which I hope are as objective as possible.
I think most, if not all of what Ben David is saying about gay men is bunk. I think gay men are just as varied as straight men in their intelligence, abilities, politics, etc. This isn't what I thought back when I finished high school. To the extent I thought about gays at all, I'd this idea they were, well, freaks.
And I've concluded gay people should be judged no differently than any other people, and deserve the same civil rights as straights.
Iconoclast at July 23, 2010 9:51 AM
Leave a comment