Pornography Poll: Personal Issues

[_subgenius]

...

Anything else must be a genetic mishap or a psychological retardation of development.

I am really looking forward to reading more about this from whatever resource you got the idea from.

Homosexuality is either an immutable condition or it is not. If it is immutable then surely it must have a genetic source. Now given that homosexuality is severely in the minority among human beings, and more so across the whole of living species, it can best described as an abnormality in terms of biology.
The absolute most important aspect of evolution is reproduction. We reproduce to configure a more successful gene combination in terms of species survival. Without reproduction we become extinct. Theoretically, genes that promote "success" are continued and those that can not are discarded. However, sometimes genes become defective, for whatever reason (radiation for example). These defects can have either a positive or negative impact on the before mentioned success. Often we see that these deviations are unsuccessful or without any impact. But at times they prove to be to the species' advantage. Perhaps one can argue that LGBT provides an advantage that has yet to be realized (like great Broadway plays or wonderful window treatments) but in the spectrum of basic evolutionary concepts there has been little success. Without the innate desire to reproduce one must consider that gene combination to be defective, otherwise the combination is intentional as a means to dispose of genes, a sort of self-destruct mechanism. Perhaps the same could be argued for someone who was born sterile but heterosexual.
I do not consider homosexuality to be genetic per se. I consider the "natural" and successful condition to be one of virility and fertility. LGBT makes more sense as a choice and/or as a psychological condition.

And I am CFRing that "many" PM women say that they have been burdened by Viagra. Many meaning a large portion of the group. Not just, oh yeah a hundred women said that, but 1000 were super happy.

Let us not impose (yet) any psychological considerations:
Let us first examine the biological facts:
Women
1. Menopause lowers the levels of estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone.
a. estrogen heightens sensitivity during intercourse
b. progesterone increases libido
c. testosterone boosts desire and lubricates vagina

One can easily conclude that the "biology" of the body is creating conditions which are not optimal for nor encouraging for sexual activity.

Men
2.Growing old has physiological effects on sexual performance
a. Testosterone decreases
b. blood flow to genitals is less rapid , response times decreas
c. enlarging of prostrate inhibits ability to achieve and/or maintain erection
d. pelvic muscles begin to degenerate and weaken

One can easily conclude that the "biology" of the body is creating conditions which are not optimal for nor encouraging for sexual activity.

Again, we see that the "natural" course of events have our physical bodies create an environment which discourages sexual intercourse.

About two-thirds of women ages 60 and older say they're moderately to very satisfied with their sexual activity, though the level of that activity did decline with age.
http://www.livescience.com/15742-sex-se ... fying.html

We easily see a biological directive to "decrease" activity, if not, arguably, to cease activity. The persistence of sexual activity after the biological imperative is no longer relative to biology and is perhaps best explained by the continued need for intimacy (psychological). However, since we see that the majority of women are happy with a decreased level of activity means that the ability to achieve intimacy has also matured, and we can see that touching, kissing, etc.. are viable behaviors to continue intimacy in lieu of intercourse and orgasms.
Again, sexual development runs a course and when that course is halted at any stage it is termed a "retardation". Much like the teenager who never "lets go" of masturbation and forgoes any sexual relationship with a partner. His retardation is not physical, but psychological. The same is seen in the elderly man who refuses to accept that his little soldier no longer stands at attention without the little blue pill.
Most of us likely imagine that we will stop our sexual activity only when our bodies fail us, or when we are dead. Is this not a psychological conflict with what is naturally occurring with our bodies? Are we not creating unnatural products like Viagra and lubricants in order to gain dominion over the biological imperative of aging?

If one considers this life to be without God, or the supernatural, then how can one reconcile this desire? Without God we have no ability to "choose otherwise". We would simply be products of the bio-chemical processes contained within our bag of skin. Our minds would be subject to the laws of chemistry and all of our actions would be predetermined reactions easily reproduced in a test tube. You could no more "make" your own decision than you could control how sodium reacts with potassium.
But i sincerely believe that each of us, knows better.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Am I the only one who thinks that these porn polls are a lame attempt at G-rated Mormon voyeurism?

[_subgenius]

Am I the only one who thinks that these porn polls are a lame attempt at G-rated Mormon voyeurism?

yes

[_Buffalo]

Am I the only one who thinks that these porn polls are a lame attempt at G-rated Mormon voyeurism?

Nope. It's like all the Mormon bishops who want GREAT DETAIL about confessions of sexual sins. "And sister Smith, tell me, at this point where were your panties? How far were they down your thighs? What color were they?"

[_Corpsegrinder]

Buffalo:

Nope. It's like all the Mormon bishops who want GREAT DETAIL about confessions of sexual sins. "And sister Smith, tell me, at this point where were your panties? How far were they down your thighs? What color were they?"

Anxiously waiting for what comes next. (Hey, I would've made a great bishop!)

Subgenius:

yes

Ah, then it must be a legitimate attempt at G-rated Mormon voyeurism. I stand corrected.

[_just me]

...
I am really looking forward to reading more about this from whatever resource you got the idea from.

Homosexuality is either an immutable condition or it is not. If it is immutable then surely it must have a genetic source. Now given that homosexuality is severely in the minority among human beings, and more so across the whole of living species, it can best described as an abnormality in terms of biology.
The absolute most important aspect of evolution is reproduction. We reproduce to configure a more successful gene combination in terms of species survival. Without reproduction we become extinct. Theoretically, genes that promote "success" are continued and those that can not are discarded. However, sometimes genes become defective, for whatever reason (radiation for example). These defects can have either a positive or negative impact on the before mentioned success. Often we see that these deviations are unsuccessful or without any impact. But at times they prove to be to the species' advantage. Perhaps one can argue that LGBT provides an advantage that has yet to be realized (like great Broadway plays or wonderful window treatments) but in the spectrum of basic evolutionary concepts there has been little success. Without the innate desire to reproduce one must consider that gene combination to be defective, otherwise the combination is intentional as a means to dispose of genes, a sort of self-destruct mechanism. Perhaps the same could be argued for someone who was born sterile but heterosexual.
I do not consider homosexuality to be genetic per se. I consider the "natural" and successful condition to be one of virility and fertility. LGBT makes more sense as a choice and/or as a psychological condition.

So, you don't have any source.

And I am CFRing that "many" PM women say that they have been burdened by Viagra. Many meaning a large portion of the group. Not just, oh yeah a hundred women said that, but 1000 were super happy.

Let us not impose (yet) any psychological considerations:
Let us first examine the biological facts:
Women
1. Menopause lowers the levels of estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone.
a. estrogen heightens sensitivity during intercourse
b. progesterone increases libido
c. testosterone boosts desire and lubricates vagina

One can easily conclude that the "biology" of the body is creating conditions which are not optimal for nor encouraging for sexual activity.

Men
2.Growing old has physiological effects on sexual performance
a. Testosterone decreases
b. blood flow to genitals is less rapid , response times decreas
c. enlarging of prostrate inhibits ability to achieve and/or maintain erection
d. pelvic muscles begin to degenerate and weaken

One can easily conclude that the "biology" of the body is creating conditions which are not optimal for nor encouraging for sexual activity.

Again, we see that the "natural" course of events have our physical bodies create an environment which discourages sexual intercourse.

About two-thirds of women ages 60 and older say they're moderately to very satisfied with their sexual activity, though the level of that activity did decline with age.
http://www.livescience.com/15742-sex-se ... fying.html

We easily see a biological directive to "decrease" activity, if not, arguably, to cease activity. The persistence of sexual activity after the biological imperative is no longer relative to biology and is perhaps best explained by the continued need for intimacy (psychological). However, since we see that the majority of women are happy with a decreased level of activity means that the ability to achieve intimacy has also matured, and we can see that touching, kissing, etc.. are viable behaviors to continue intimacy in lieu of intercourse and orgasms.
Again, sexual development runs a course and when that course is halted at any stage it is termed a "retardation". Much like the teenager who never "lets go" of masturbation and forgoes any sexual relationship with a partner. His retardation is not physical, but psychological. The same is seen in the elderly man who refuses to accept that his little soldier no longer stands at attention without the little blue pill.
Most of us likely imagine that we will stop our sexual activity only when our bodies fail us, or when we are dead. Is this not a psychological conflict with what is naturally occurring with our bodies? Are we not creating unnatural products like Viagra and lubricants in order to gain dominion over the biological imperative of aging?

If one considers this life to be without God, or the supernatural, then how can one reconcile this desire? Without God we have no ability to "choose otherwise". We would simply be products of the bio-chemical processes contained within our bag of skin. Our minds would be subject to the laws of chemistry and all of our actions would be predetermined reactions easily reproduced in a test tube. You could no more "make" your own decision than you could control how sodium reacts with potassium.
But i sincerely believe that each of us, knows better.

This is really long.

Is a house not an unnatural product? Are clothes not unnatural products? Eyeglasses are unnatural. Goodness sakes, soap is an unnatural product. If by unnatural you mean human created then pretty much everything we use and enjoy is unnatural. Are you anti-medical? Do you live in a hut and fetch water from the river and only eat what you can gather from your surroundings? Do you only have sex with your wife when she is ovulating and always without birth control? Will you reject her sexually as soon as she stops being fertile?

Over 50% of women who are post-menopausal masturbate alone. I'm gonna wager that it is not to feel close and bonded to another person. It is for the orgasm.

[_subgenius]

So, you don't have any source.

so, you would need a source to discern my thesis that:
Sexual practices that significantly reduce the frequency of heterosexual intercourse also significantly decrease the chances of successful reproduction, and appear to be maladaptive in an evolutionary context following the simple Darwinian model of natural selection

Don't consider this rude but the assumption is that at least a cursory knowledge of the various debates and history on this topics exists.
1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders. In other words, not to long ago ,being LGBT was a psychological "defect". Long ago it was simply pathological, Freud considered it a retardation, and during the 19th century it was being considered a genetic defect.
Currently it serves little more than as a political agenda.
Since no genetic link has been proven to exist for homosexuality, only the theoretical can be proposed...which i have done and given supporting argument for that position. If you have an alternate proposition as to how homosexuality "fits" within the evolution framework, then by all means share.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... etics.html
There is a long list of genetic defects, to exaggerate the offensive impact of having the LGBT be found as a genetic abnormality is cliché'.
Consider this....in the 60s and 70s most developed countries castrated males that were born with micro-penises and then raised the child as a female. Overwhelmingly these adult "females" reported having sexual attractions to females...a powerful suggestion that sexual attraction is "born with". - reference William Reiner of University of Oklahoma

This is really long.

nice innuendo, but keep it celestial, please.

Is a house not an unnatural product? Are clothes not unnatural products? Eyeglasses are unnatural. Goodness sakes, soap is an unnatural product. If by unnatural you mean human created then pretty much everything we use and enjoy is unnatural. Are you anti-medical? Do you live in a hut and fetch water from the river and only eat what you can gather from your surroundings?

there are many manipulations that mankind has made in order to improve life, prolong life, and even escape life. I believe all of these can not be simply lumped into one reductionist heap. Some are mo' better and some are mo' worse. However, one should not simply contradict nature simply because one can, i would simply ask what the redeeming value is for Viagra?
Is Viagra, in your mind, on the same plane as man's ability to build a house? (yes, both involve wood.....sorry could not resist), is Viagra tantamount to penicillin?
I believe the motivations and consequences are dramatically different in either case.

Do you only have sex with your wife when she is ovulating and always without birth control? Will you reject her sexually as soon as she stops being fertile?

no, i have already made the initial case for non-procreative sex as a couple. Intimacy as a means of strengthening the parental relationship. I have already proposed that sex is vital for procreation and intimacy...2 sides of same coin.

Over 50% of women who are post-menopausal masturbate alone. I'm gonna wager that it is not to feel close and bonded to another person. It is for the orgasm.

citation, please. ;)
Obviously, in the context of evolution i fail to see your argument here. It seems that you are falling back on a more self-centered hedonistic view of sex.

[_Buffalo]

no, i have already made the initial case for non-procreative sex as a couple. Intimacy as a means of strengthening the parental relationship.

The parental relationship should be free of any sexual relations whatsoever. I hope you meant "marital relationship."

[_just me]

Here is the citation: http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/resources/FAQ.html

There are some helpful charts and citations from many different sources on the site. I was thinking of this particular thing I had read. I actually didn't do it justice. It was over half of all SINGLE females over age 70.

•Approximately one-third of women in all relationships in the 60- to 69-year cohort reported recent masturbation. NSSHB, 2010
•Among women in the National Sex Survey older than 70, solo masturbation was reported by more than half who were in a non-cohabitating relationship, compared to 12.2% among married women.NSSHB, 2010

You asked:

However, one should not simply contradict nature simply because one can, i would simply ask what the redeeming value is for Viagra?

Well, you are actually the one who brought up Viagra claiming it was some kind of burden on post-menopausal women.

If you were a man who was not able to perform sexually or a woman who's partner was not able to perform sexually I imagine that Viagra might have quite a lot of redeeming value.

I know believers who have tried it.

[_Corpsegrinder]

This is really long.

nice innuendo, but keep it celestial, please.

Pure class, Sub.