What's new

Longest Thread Ever

uhhhmmmmm. . . . .

. . . . .

I think I may have made you uncomfortable.

Do we have to create labels to create some artificial sense of "identity". We are human. Why create all kinds of "sorts" of humans and make a fuss about our differences?

I've never seen a bull all strung out with self-hate, or apprehensions of what others might think.

Cowboys, when they see two bulls doing some kind of unusual play, call it "Balling around". You don't fundamentally change your nature by having a different sort of idea about what is "fun".

Some scientists have looked for some kind of statistically-significant measure of sexuality. One finding is that phytoestrogens in food containers like pop bottles, the plastic lining inside steel cans, , and a lot of other plastics have caused measureable changes in male distinctions from females on several morphological features.

Somebody tell me, please, why we eat foods full of estrogens and then call it "natural" that men are effeminate?

Estrogens and their agonists, testosterone, determine a lot of things in human development, including differences in brain structures, smell and color centers that dominate our likes, dislikes, preferences, and such.

Also, somebody please tell me why behavior or "comfort zones" in relationships, call for differences in legal standing before the law. Let alone call for new labels we can argue about with one another.

The bovines don't bother with any of that. You are what you are. It's that simple.

a cow is a cow. A bull is a bull.

Well, I am human, for better or worse, and you stated that you "kinda like that the bulls screwing bulls" is a better life.. loosely interpreted.
I'm sorry, I am not a fun-loving bull.. I am human. And my "ummmmm" was about whether we can make life as simple as a cow when, in my opinion, God gave us our capacity.
 
Well, I am human, for better or worse, and you stated that you "kinda like that the bulls screwing bulls" is a better life.. loosely interpreted.
I'm sorry, I am not a fun-loving bull.. I am human. And my "ummmmm" was about whether we can make life as simple as a cow when, in my opinion, God gave us our capacity.

Then god also gave men a round peg and a round hole, right? If god didn't want men to do that he would have given them incompatible ports don't ya think?
 

Sorta trying to figure out exactly how this fits in. Looked like some street toughs hazing someone, was it an extremely effeminate boy, or someone who was actually a girl?

In the Philippines, when I was there decades ago, some moms would reinforce effeminate characteristics in one of their boys. These "guys" were pretty conspicuous, especially as workers in barber shops who would do nails, for example. It was quite obvious that a lot of kids in the boys-only, or girls-only private schools were pairing up in some sort of affectionate, publicly-displayed, relation.

However, when school days were over, it seemed there was pretty much a heterosexual adult culture. . . .

What I'm sorta saying, or wondering about, is why we want to make a stand of personal identity over some affective phase or another, and why we actually sorta "lock down" on the "identity" and think it is a fundamentally important thing somehow.

My yearling cattle do sorta move on in life, after "playing" a bit. Of course I castrate a lot of them and "create" something called a "steer", which is observably more docile and much less dangerous to deal with, plus is known to yield a more tender. . . . less stringy. . . meat. That is the effect of a hormone on a living thing.

Steers don't stand behind a cow in heat and take such long deep euphoria over the smell of pee. See, hormones affect brain development including pleasure centers.

I think we'd be a smarter society if we took a serious look into our food packaging and other plastics and eradicated estrogenic chemicals like BPA. Bis-phenol A is a "plasticizer" that also strengthens the physical properties of plastics. You can make do with thinner walls in pop bottles, even in aluminum and steel cans. . . .

But you turn your boys into more effeminate speciments of humanity.
 
Well, I am human, for better or worse, and you stated that you "kinda like that the bulls screwing bulls" is a better life.. loosely interpreted.
I'm sorry, I am not a fun-loving bull.. I am human. And my "ummmmm" was about whether we can make life as simple as a cow when, in my opinion, God gave us our capacity.

I don't think governments should have power to legislate our cognitive or behavioral preferences. I like religions, and in particular I see our natures as humans, as men and women, as inherent natural physical, neurological, and functional features. Men and women may prefer different sorts of things, they may fit the "pattern" or choose to differ somehow. That is inherently their business, and I don't favor governmental power being imposed to achieve conformity to any "ideal".

I choose to be religious, and to attribute to God some kind of design, pattern, or life expectations. I don't think a "God" is inherently different from a "human". I see a natural couple having children as very functional, and I think it can be a very happy sort of thing. Two humans who can love someone who is so fundamentally different, and choose to be together and honor one another, obviously, are making an effort that can be viewed as reaching for a higher ideal, as trying to overcome circumstantial problems for the sake of another's welfare, and for the sake of children. I think the effort we make in marriages improve upon our character, talents, skills, and almost any other measure of achievement.
 
Well, I am human, for better or worse, and you stated that you "kinda like that the bulls screwing bulls" is a better life.. loosely interpreted.
I'm sorry, I am not a fun-loving bull.. I am human. And my "ummmmm" was about whether we can make life as simple as a cow when, in my opinion, God gave us our capacity.

Well, for the record. I called it experimental "play" and I observe that it does not seem to be as much "fun" as heterosexual "play". The pieces just didn't fit the same. Things didn't "feel" the same. If I don't castrate a young bull, those pheromones the real cows put out pretty well dominate the bulls decisions.

But my real point here is that I don't feed my cows from plastics laced in estrogenic chemicals. My cattle have not shifted their morphological measurements or their choice of partners. Meanwhile, I allege, we humans as a society have chosen to shift our entire legal/cultural system to avoid seeing the effects of our exposure to artificial estrogens particularly in our food containers. But also in our carpets, our children's toys. . . . you know, the stuff our rugrats suck on all day long between feedings. . . .
 
Then god also gave men a round peg and a round hole, right? If god didn't want men to do that he would have given them incompatible ports don't ya think?

Well, whatever I want to believe as a "religion", I have found I can't produce God as a witness in courts or as a participant in say a scientific investigation of any kind.

I simply observe sexual characteristics in humans and opine that they are functional and healthy for us. I consider the chemicals we use that are having an impact on our sexuality to be negatives we should not really tolerate.

I have no personal agenda to legislate behavior or thinking. I just want people to be aware of the chemistry and biochemistry of food packaging.
 
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dr. Jones again.

100 is a violation of the human destiny, the imperative to try harder, reach further, do more, that anyone has done before. It is anti-progress.

We always need to set higher goals somehow.
 
Maybe god wants us to exercise our free will? (and our ports)

For that matter, maybe the Great Monkey wants us to eat fruits and berries and swing from the tallest trees, and just quit being stupid about cars, trains, planes, and jobs.

"free will" I equate with the natural human rights of cognition, purpose, and action, all essential to our human condition as viable actors in the world with some right to live here somehow.
 
Well, for the record. I called it experimental "play" and I observe that it does not seem to be as much "fun" as heterosexual "play". The pieces just didn't fit the same. Things didn't "feel" the same. If I don't castrate a young bull, those pheromones the real cows put out pretty well dominate the bulls decisions.

But my real point here is that I don't feed my cows from plastics laced in estrogenic chemicals. My cattle have not shifted their morphological measurements or their choice of partners. Meanwhile, I allege, we humans as a society have chosen to shift our entire legal/cultural system to avoid seeing the effects of our exposure to artificial estrogens particularly in our food containers. But also in our carpets, our children's toys. . . . you know, the stuff our rugrats suck on all day long between feedings. . . .

I don't think this is true. I eat out of plastic things all the time and I only wear women's underwear on the weekends:p
 
I don't think this is true. I eat out of plastic things all the time and I only wear women's underwear on the weekends:p

So like all statistics, the data generally involve a mean, a mode, and a variance factor. Obviously, we still have some real males in the cohort, individuals who are not affected to the same extent as others, as well as variance in the actual exposures to the estrogens.

Feedlot cattle will constitute a divergent cohort from grass-fed, open-range cattle like mine.

And then, again, I noticed in high school days that we always seemed to have a class clown purposefully pulling stunts for attention. Might have been just that I was always in the group I was analyzing. . . . .
 
Back
Top