Can't Afford Sexual Reassignment?

[Gameface]

This thread totally sucking.

More talk of hot lesbians please

Agreed.

I'll start.

So it seems like many more women are willing to go both ways. Is this a result of the greater acceptance of girl on girl activities or is something else going on?

 

[Gameface]

It's such a relief that someone decided to make this about women being sexual objects. I was wondering if JazzFanz had changed.

On one hand I think you need to lighten up, he was joking.

On the other, there are times and places where women are perfectly happy to be treated as a sexual object. Women typically want to be sexually desired and thought of in a sexual way by those they are attracted to. But go ahead and respect women so much that you're never willing to demean them by satisfying their sexual desires. Sounds like a hoot.

 

[fishonjazz]

Agreed.

I'll start.

So it seems like many more women are willing to go both ways. Is this a result of the greater acceptance of girl on girl activities or is something else going on?

Positive effects of the LBGT?
Or less women for us horny dudes?

Deep stuff to ponder

 

[ema]

Agreed.

I'll start.

So it seems like many more women are willing to go both ways. Is this a result of the greater acceptance of girl on girl activities or is something else going on?

I bet the increase of dudes are going both ways is bigger than the women are. They, men, watch too much pron and they get used to other men's rods and after some time they go like "What the hell!"

Yep I made the thread sucking again.

 

[Gameface]

I bet the increase of dudes are going both ways is bigger than the women are. They, men, watch too much pron and they get used to other men's rods and after some time they go like "What the hell!"

Yep I made the thread sucking again.

Has not happened to me...yet.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I bet the increase of dudes are going both ways is bigger than the women are. They, men, watch too much pron and they get used to other men's rods and after some time they go like "What the hell!"

Yep I made the thread sucking again.

shall i pm you my rod?

 

[♪alt13]

Agreed.

I'll start.

So it seems like many more women are willing to go both ways. Is this a result of the greater acceptance of girl on girl activities or is something else going on?

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Women probably are more willing to make the choice to go both ways due to social acceptance.

 

[One Brow]

On one hand I think you need to lighten up, he was joking.

Thanks goodness that means he couldn't possibly have been offensive.

On the other, there are times and places where women are perfectly happy to be treated as a sexual object. Women typically want to be sexually desired and thought of in a sexual way by those they are attracted to. But go ahead and respect women so much that you're never willing to demean them by satisfying their sexual desires. Sounds like a hoot.

Why do you think that you equate sexually desiring a person and using a person as a sexual object? I'm much more interested in experiences with mutual pleasure and desire than in experiences that are about my pleasure and desire.

 

[scootsy]

what's the problem with look at people as sexual objects?

 

[TroutBum]

DIDO

I never really cared for her music.

Please tell us some science Mr. Algebra. Maybe something you heard from Bill Nye.

How funny that you're trying to talk down to me while at the same time taking a shot at one of the more interesting and intelligent scientists alive right now. Anyhow, what science would you like me to drop on you? Anything specific?

I've never understood why anybody makes the issue of others' sexual preference (as long as it is consentual) their own. That is all I have to say.

Preach on, little drummer boy.

Since straight sexuality is not "all in the bedroom", expecting LGBT sexuality to remain there is blatant discrimination.

I don't know about discrimination; probably just ignorance, since I've said the same thing without really thinking about it.

It's such a relief that someone decided to make this about women being sexual objects. I was wondering if JazzFanz had changed.

And, phew, thank Allah that you haven't changed either.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Women probably are more willing to make the choice to go both ways due to social acceptance.

There are also plenty of people who "choose" to be depressed, or sad all the time. That doesn't change the fact that people with real depression don't "choose" to be that way. I know plenty of skanks who chose to be bi because they knew guys liked it. They are almost all married with children now -- get this -- because they were born straight. I have a friend who has had lots of sex with girls, but he was only doing it to try and tell himself that he wasn't gay. He's married to a guy in SF now, and has been for the last ten years.

 

[♪alt13]

How funny that you're trying to talk down to me while at the same time taking a shot at one of the more interesting and intelligent scientists alive right now.

I ♥ me some Nye. Because I ♥ kids tv science.

Anyhow, what science would you like me to drop on you? Anything specific?

Tell me about Nye's great scientific discoveries.

 

[sirkickyass]

let me define choice

choice vs genetic

Identical Twins.
One gay One straight
which one do you call out for not being true to themselves.

Since you seem sympathetic to homosexual rights let me ask you this.

Can the LGBT community ever win the debate about the morality of their lifestyle with an argument that is based on genetic fatalism?

We wouldn't make the assumption that violence was moral even if we did think people were born violent.

P.S. I did choose to be straight. I'm sure there were a lot of cultural, environmental, personal, and even genetic factors that led me to my decision. Ultimately it was a choice.

I feel the need to respond to this post to point out that identical twins, one straight and one gay, does not mean that there are no genetic causes of determination of sexual orientation.

It's been known for years that "identical twins" do not actually have identical genetic profiles. There are significant examples of identical twins where one has diseases caused by the expression of certain genes where the other did not. Cases where one twin develops parkinsons and the other other does not. Cases where one twin is autistic and the other is not.

Here's an article from several years ago about it, and it's not about gay people so this isn't about pushing an agenda. This is strictly about the (still extremely new) science of genetics:

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html?_r=0

It is a basic tenet of human biology, taught in grade schools everywhere: Identical twins come from the same fertilized egg and, thus, share identical genetic profiles.

But according to new research, though identical twins share very similar genes, identical they are not. The discovery opens a new understanding of why two people who hail from the same embryo can differ in phenotype, as biologists refer to a person’s physical manifestation.

The new findings appear in the March issue of The American Journal of Human Genetics, in a study conducted by scientists at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and universities in Sweden and the Netherlands. The scientists examined the genes of 10 pairs of monozygotic, or identical, twins, including 9 pairs in which one twin showed signs of dementia or Parkinson’s disease and the other did not.

It has long been known that identical twins develop differences that result from environment. And in recent years, it has also been shown that some of their differences can spring from unique changes in what are known as epigenetic factors, the chemical markers that attach to genes and affect how they are expressed — in some cases by slowing or shutting the genes off, and in others by increasing their output.

These epigenetic changes — which accumulate over a lifetime and can arise from things like diet and tobacco smoke — have been implicated in the development of cancer and behavioral traits like fearfulness and confidence, among other things. Epigenetic markers vary widely from one person to another, but identical twins were still considered genetically identical because epigenetics influence only the expression of a gene and not the underlying sequence of the gene itself.

“When we started this study, people were expecting that only epigenetics would differ greatly between twins,” said Jan Dumanski, a professor of genetics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and an author of the study. “But what we found are changes on the genetic level, the DNA sequence itself.”

The specific changes that Dr. Dumanski and his colleagues identified are known as copy number variations, in which a gene exists in multiple copies, or a set of coding letters in DNA is missing. Not known, however, is whether these changes in identical twins occur at the embryonic level, as the twins age or both.

“Copy number variations were discovered only a few years ago, but they are immensely important,” said Dr. Carl Bruder, another author of the study at the university. Certain copy variations have been shown in humans to confer protection against diseases like AIDS, while others are believed to contribute to autism, lupus and other conditions. By studying pairs of identical twins in which one sibling has a disease and the other does not, scientists should be able to identify more easily the genes involved in disease.

John Witte, a professor of genetic epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings were part of a growing focus on genetic changes after the parents’ template had been laid. This and other research, Dr. Witte said, shows “you’ve got a little bit more genetic variation than previously thought.”

In the meantime, a lot of biology textbooks may need updating.

Dr. Dumanski pointed out, for example, that as his study was going to press, the following statement could be found on the Web site of the National Human Genome Research Institute, the group that financed the government project to decode the human genome: “Most of any one person’s DNA, some 99.9 percent, is exactly the same as any other person’s DNA. (Identical twins are the exception, with 100 percent similarity).”

That, we now know, no longer appears to be the case.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Identical twins apparently do not have identical DNA.

For the record, I'm relatively certain this battle has already been won and the ultimate outcome is inevitable. All people fighting against it at this point are doing is creating a record of ignorance that they'll find embarrassing later.

 

[One Brow]

what's the problem with look at people as sexual objects?

When the primary message of the surrounding culture is that you are a valued person, it seems harmless. When the primary message of the surrounding culture is that you are a a sexual object, many people find it hurtful.

 

[Gameface]

 

[moevillini]

...For the record, I'm relatively certain this battle has already been won and the ultimate outcome is inevitable. All people fighting against it at this point are doing is creating a record of ignorance that they'll find embarrassing later.

maybe, but probably not.


Are we still talking about Chelsea Manning?

Ironic surname, isn't it?

at any rate, a new trail is being blazed here. whatever the etiology, it's definitely new territory.

 

[ema]

I genuinely believe in modest clothing for both men and women, but that clothing is just ludicrous.

 

[One Brow]

Funnier because it's totally false.

 

[scootsy]

Funnier because it's totally false.

agreed. soooo funny