Heterosexuality = Sexism

[hellmitre]

Men in the military become very comfortable with each other, living in such close proximity and putting themselves in danger with their buddies. They have no problem making jokes about jacking off in combat (as seen in Mark Bowden's Black Hawk Down or not being disgusted when their buddy's genitals have been shot off and they have to apply pressure to keep him alive. Yet I believe (and would probably act the same way) that even guys (heterosexual guys) who have become that comfortable with each other wouldn't do what you suggest would rule out the 'ick' factor, the sex-act-for-money, anfurny. Closeness and comfortability with one sex or another really has no bearing on sexual attraction.

[semicolon]

I like black people, but I'm very rarely sexually attracted to black women (or men!).

Racist? I don't know, maybe.

[SecondTalon]

My point on chromosomes was this: To contend you can only be attracted to one sex, you must have a definition of sex by which you judge. The possibility of sex change operations rule out looks and body (unless you are attracted to transexuals). It cannot be chromosomes for the reasons I provided. So, if it's not either of these, what is it?

No, sex change operations do not rule out looks and body. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and fucks like a duck... sure, it can't reproduce like a duck, but does anyone really care that it was born a goose?

Some do, and some don't... but some people prefer blondes, others really like redheads.

what is it?

As has been said a dozen times already... Personal Preferences. Asking why is asking why I hate mushrooms, or why someone doesn't care for Thelma and Louise. You'll get a lot of opinions, personal anecdotes, and so on.. but nothing that would hold up to peer review.

Logic and sex don't mix. If they did, we wouldn't have an STD problem.

[Azrael]

My point with emphasizing love rather than sexual desires is that A) I find it more interesting and B) The two are very related (specifically the former is one source of the latter.

The problem is that you stated romantic love. The kind of love that intertwines with sex. As for non-romantic love: I love my dad. I love my brother. I love several long time male friends. I have no desire to have sex with them.

I'm investigating the issue of whether there is any logical reason why it's consistently against your interests.

To contend you can only be attracted to one sex, you must have a definition of sex by which you judge ... It cannot be chromosomes for the reasons I provided. So, if it's not either of these, what is it?

The reason you seem to be ignoring -- BIOLOGY.

Call it natural order if you wish. I think I'll call it "instinct to reproduce". Sex = Reproduction on the most basic level, whether or not we've added the Sex = Fun as well.

So yes, it is logically against my interests to have sex with men. Men cannot bear my children.

And if you want to be terribly existential (and you shouldn't) about "what is man" it's really pretty simple, actually, to define female -- especially for the guy arguing for biology: Was born with all outward or observable indications of having the required anatomy for carrying children.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

The act of having sex is one way to express certain ranges feelings. My point with emphasizing love rather than sexual desires is that A) I find it more interesting and B) The two are very related (specifically the former is one source of the latter).

For the third time... you are not talking about love, you're talking about sex. For the third time, I've said that I love guys, but I would never have a sexual relationship with them. Heterosexuality may be sexist, but it does not, and has never, precluded ANYONE from loving anyone of the same sex.

Please try to understand this soon.

[bigglesworth]

Can we use greek words here to make sure we're not being confused?

storge = familial love

eros = sexual love

philia = friendship, non sexual

agape = general love for other people

[zenten]

"Sexist" is not the right term at all. If it was then there would not be so many sexist homophobes.

[TheStranger]

Love doesn't always come down to the ol' bump n' grind... there are many different forms of love.

I love my family (Parents, brothers, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, ect...) but I don't express that love through sex.

I love my friends, but again... not going to sleep with them.

Indeed, in my experience sex is only a small part of love (even between myself and a woman).

Now my physical desires are focused entirely on the female gender... the way they walk, speak, laugh, smell... I love all those things. Its not sexist to prefer one gender or the other, any more then its racist to not like Chinese food.

as always there is a wiki for C.S. Lewis's Four Loves different types of love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves

[solarchem]

I'm not going to try to argue that it's in your interest to be open to both sexes, it may be, depending, but that's not really a goal of mine here. I'm investigating the issue of whether there is any logical reason why it's consistently against your interests (not whether the good outweighs the bad, but if there is any strong bad at all).

I'm not really sure what your point is here. You've tossed around a number of phrases, but really there are only two types of love: platonic and sexual. It doesn't matter if you apply the label 'familial' or 'romantic' or anything else. Ultimately they fall on one side or the other.

I think we've covered the platonic part. Yes, most people love people of the same gender. So no discrimination there.

On the sexual side of the coin, if you're going to argue that it's discriminatory to prefer one sex over the other then you do have to make a case as to why it would be in our interests to be open to both sexes.

The case for a single sex preference is obvious. A significant amount of resources are needed for competing for a mate and mating itself. Given that the ultimate goal of a population is to pass down genes, it would be a waste for my brain to send signals urging me to compete for the affections of another man.
You can even make a biological argument for homosexuality, such as in the case of some ducks. I don't believe they actually have sex (or at least I'm not sure how they do), but two males will pair off. This helps the gene pool as a whole because they help raise the offspring of other males (who are likely related) thus ensuring their survival while not adding additional competition for the breeding males to fight off.
Regardless, it makes far more sense from a resource management aspect to go one way or the other. You're either focused on raising your offspring or helping someone else with theirs, but you can't try to both and expect to be as good at it as someone who devoted themselves to one or the other.

So, unless you can offer up some reason why biologically it would be in my best interests to have sex with both genders while I stubbornly refuse to do so then this whole 'discrimination' question is a bunch of nonsense.

[anfurny]

Re Owijad: Calling it the "natural" state of affairs doesn't mean it's not a mistake, shouldn't be changed, or really prove anything at all. You should re-read my last post until you understand it.

---

Response to Offspring argument: Plenty of people fall in love with sterile women.

---

Response Types of love confusion:

I don't want to break love down in to a bunch of categories, because anybody who does so would have to offer some evidence and very painstaking definitions. When I have said love (and I will continue with this convention) I mean the kind of love that is meant by the phrase "in love," which has the following attributes:

- Accelerated heart rate around the individual.
- Obsessive thinking about the individual.
- Mental justification of feelings through phrases such as "This person understands me better than anybody else," "We have a connection so deep that we can tell what the other is thinking, almost complete each other's sentences," etc.

---

Azrael defines female as "Was born with all outward or observable indications of having the required anatomy for carrying children."

My response: You can create a definition of female that does exclude that range of people, but it is sort of arbitrary. Not all people define female that way; so you have some choice in the matter. Since you have a choice, and since you lose nothing and only gain potential romantic partners by widening your definition, would you widen your definition if you could?

---

Re solarchem:

I've never argued "You should be bisexual." I don't know where people are getting that from. Actually, they are probably getting it from the same place they got the impression that I'm arguing heterosexuality is unfair. From a cursory glance at the title that and a belief that they could just strut in and post their own opinion without reading (or comprehending) even my initial post or anybody else's post.

I've asked questions on the reasons people are not bisexual. We can analyze the reasons not to do something without analyzing the reasons to do something.

Your argument is why you theorize you would have evolved a sexual preference for only women. What's in evolution's best interest is not what you want most though, so the argument is irrelevant.

----

I'm going on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow, so for the small percent of you that actually pay any attention to my posts rather than just sounding off in authoratitive tone, I'm letting you know you'll have to entertain yourselves.

I may revisit this site after that week, if not, have a nice life.... or at least try to have a life.[/quote]

[TheStranger]

---

Response Types of love confusion:

I don't want to break love down in to a bunch of categories, because anybody who does so would have to offer some evidence and very painstaking definitions. When I have said love (and I will continue with this convention) I mean the kind of love that is meant by the phrase "in love," which has the following attributes:

- Accelerated heart rate around the individual.
- Obsessive thinking about the individual.
- Mental justification of feelings through phrases such as "This person understands me better than anybody else," "We have a connection so deep that we can tell what the other is thinking, almost complete each other's sentences," etc.

Well, though it seems that you are talking about love in the Eros sense, I'd argue that thats not entierly true. There are people who love a country/ideology/religious figure in the same way.

Azrael defines female as "Was born with all outward or observable indications of having the required anatomy for carrying children."

My response: You can create a definition of female that does exclude that range of people, but it is sort of arbitrary. Not all people define female that way; so you have some choice in the matter. Since you have a choice, and since you lose nothing and only gain potential romantic partners by widening your definition, would you widen your definition if you could?

The definition of female is far from arbitrary, ask any doctor/biologist/99% of the population what 'is' female and you will get essentially the same response. being female is, at the heart of the matter, defined by your pluming.

[davef]

I'm going on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow.

Don't hurry back.

[silverhammermba]

The answer to pretty much all of your questions is: society.

Our society is the groundwork for many of our opinions and choices and I believe sexual preference is included in this. For example, I think that if you were to create an all-homosexual society in which all of the children were raised by homosexual adults most of them would probably end up being homosexual themselves. It makes sense.

I am heterosexual and I know that for pretty much my entire life heterosexual thoughts were planted in my head. Even small children are aware that one day boys and girls are expected to get married and, somehow, have kids. Most kindergarteners have the concept of 'cooties' which usually involves hugging, holding hands with, or kissing the opposite sex. It's difficult to ignore these suggestions.

I certainly don't mind being heterosexual, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that I would be heterosexual right now if I was raised in a homosexual society. On a side note, for that reason I also find it rather offensive when people defend homosexuality by saying that "People are born gay" - implying that there is some gene that controls sexuality.

And, let's face it, gender is slowly going the way of skin color, class, etc. Just as it was controversial in the past for a black man to sleep with a white women (but now mostly accepted), so is it now controversial for a man to sleep with another man. Eventually, I'm somewhat confident that gender will end up being largely aesthetic.

[Belial]

I'm going on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow.

Don't hurry back.

He will have difficulty doing so.

[bigglesworth]

so is it now controversial for a man to sleep with another man.

Eh, uh, really? Could you perhaps stop using the words "our society": try "my society" There is still homophobia in Britain, but I wouldn't use the word controversy.

As for the effect of culture on orientation: i'd probably agree with you there.

But there may well be genes that affect orientation, but the research is not yet complete.

[Azrael]

Re Owijad: Calling it the "natural" state of affairs doesn't mean it's not a mistake, shouldn't be changed, or really prove anything at all.

No, but it *does* mean that we don't have to logically justify it. Especially when it *can* be scientifically explained.

Response to Offspring argument: Plenty of people fall in love with sterile women.

Plenty of people fall in love with men, too. But neither your sentence nor mine proves anything, either way. You seem completely unwilling to acknowledge that sex drive and logic might not be processed by the same parts of your brain / consciousness. Under the assumption that love is totally rational and devoid of all factors save logic, I find it impossible to disprove your assertion. Congratulations, you've bounded the criteria so closely that you can't help but be 'right'. Were there nothing else in play in deciding sexual attraction, doubling your pool would be in your best interest.

But there *is* more in play than just logic. And, I'd be willing to bet, everyone in the world (except you?) actually knows that. So ... no matter how hard you try to justify your stance, you argument is inapplicable.

Now, your rational brain may be capable of harnessing your sex drive -- i.e. calculating whether or not cheating on your wife with that hot girl over there is a) likely or b) a good idea -- but your sex drive does not originate in your rational mind. The salient point is that people who are heterosexual are sexually attracted to women because the instinctual part of the mind sees women as mates. Thus, my definition of a heterosexual man being attracted to someone who "Was born with all outward or observable indications of having the required anatomy for carrying children" is justified. That's the pool that your subconscious is telling you to dive into.

Instinct, and hundreds of thousands of years of it, cannot be completely overwritten by a few thousand years of recognizing logic.

----

You should re-read my last post until you understand it.

Maybe you should edit your last post until it is more easily understood? Bad teachers aren't bad because of their students. We have not seen the proof behind your assumption of superior reasoning skills, so as of yet you can't justifiablly make the argument that the flaw is not your own.

----

As for the rest of that post: shut it, jackass.

[Maseiken]

The main flaw I can see here is Mixing up Hatred with a lack of preference.

Just because I don't want to have sex with men, it doesn't mean I don't like men as a whole or respect them.

It's not Sexist to divide the world into Male/Female,
it's logical, and it's simple, but it's not Sexist.

If you were the Put one group above the other then it would,
But your personal preference in Sexual activities isn't doing that,
Unless you feel that the gift of your hot Sweaty lovings is a prize to be clamoured for by both Genders, in which case you are a Tool.

This argument is roughly on par with saying that someone is racist because they say something like,
"Man, Black people are good at Sports!"
They aren't placing any race above any other,
They may be inaccurate, but they aren't racist.

[Belial]

As for the rest of that post: shut it, jackass.

I would stop directing speech at him. He can't answer.

Not without creating another account anyway.

[Azrael]

As for the rest of that post: shut it, jackass.

I would stop directing speech at him. He can't answer.

I'd started a reply but wandered away for coffee before finishing, so I hadn't noticed your ban hammering. Apologies.

[Belial]

Quite alright. Was just trying to save you some vitriol.

[Azrael]

Quite alright. Was just trying to save you some vitriol.

I thought I'd played that one relatively cool, actually.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

I'm going on vacation for a week, starting tomorrow, so for the small percent of you that actually pay any attention to my posts rather than just sounding off in authoratitive tone, I'm letting you know you'll have to entertain yourselves.

I may revisit this site after that week, if not, have a nice life.... or at least try to have a life.

Attention: Mods
Re: Anfurny

Can you give me his contact info, like name and address? I Have to go visit him with a Cluebat.

[Herman]

I would stop directing speech at him. He can't answer.

Not without creating another account anyway.

Drat! I read the first page and thought about a response I liked a lot. Now that the Furnster's gone it spoils it a little.

Anyway, I thought of some other questions that are basically equivalent to this topic: (Warning: Extreme facetious silliness ahead!)

- "I see you just had a baby, Mrs. Staunch-Capitalist. Congratulations. Will you be putting her to work in your factory, or will she pay for her rent and food in some other way?"

- "Dr. Scientist, what repeatable, falsifiable experiment did you conduct to reach the conclusion that your wife loves you."

- "Friedrich McNihlist, do you mind if I steal that delicious hamburger you're about to eat? You do? You aren't proposing some kind of objective morality, are you?"

Of course, I could easily answer anfurny's question on its own terms thusly: If I don't have something, it's not discrimination to not give it to someone. (If I don't own a restaurant, it's not discrimination if I don't serve black people). Romantic love involves mutual affection and desire. It's impossible for me, a straight male, to work up a feeling of romantic affection for a male. I can't do it. Therefore, it's not discrimination if I don't.

But if sexual preferences are discriminatory, who cares? It's discrimination everyone seems to like fine. Vive le difference!

[GhostWolfe]

But if sexual preferences are discriminatory, who cares? It's discrimination everyone seems to like fine. Vive le difference!

I had this problem at uni - you'd be amazed at the number of supposedly university-level students who couldn't comprehend the difference between discrimination and illegal discrimination in the field of Recruitment.

As soon as the word "discrimination" cropped up, all the walls in their heads flew up and they went into "Discrimination is Bad" mode.

[kilgore trout]

I am female. I consider myself primarily heterosexual, with many homosexual experiences. I have had sex with females, I have had sex with males. From personal experience, while sex with females was enjoyable, I prefer sex with males primarily because a penis is involved (bolded for empahsis)

But just because I prefer sex with a male, that does not make me discriminatory towards females. I have a vagina, and if you have read the masturbation thread than you are already well aware I am anything but discriminating.

[noonie]

as a member of the human race attracted to both genders, i'd have to say i'm racist i guess. wait no, that's not right.

hormones and the need to procreate. women and men are different, thankfully. if all women and all men equally felt the need to have sex with (and therefore fail to procreate with) members of their own sex as they did the members of the opposite sex we probably wouldn't have gotten this far in the history of the human race. well except for maybe china and india becuase they're just way better at that than the rest of us. we're not asexual as a species so it's a very good thing only about 10% of the population is gay.

people are attracted for loads of reasons that really go beyond any quantifiable characteristic such as height, boob size or lack of a penis. lots of research says smell has a lot to do with how women pick their mates, preferring the scent that near matches their father's. phermones, hormonal changes and things like the pill interfering with couple's chemistry.

it's not just the norm we were raised with in society. it's just the way the species works. homosexuality can be found in loads of other species, yet for continuity's sake not in a high rate.

if you're just wondering this cuz you're in the closet, try calling pflag.

and actually if you want something about societal norms interfering with attraction you might want to go into racism. more people will marry someone who looks like them, ie. causcasian, black, asian, southeast asian, etc when they get into a culture that's a mix, like western europe and america. while it's now acceptable to marry someone of a different race than you, most people still don't. figure that one out.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

But just because I prefer sex with a male, that does not make me discriminatory towards females. I have a vagina, and if you have read the masturbation thread than you are already well aware I am anything but discriminating.

Darn right. She let's ANYTHING in there... (I'm sorry, I had to...)

[kilgore trout]

Darn right. She let's ANYTHING in there... (I'm sorry, I had to...)

Well not ANYTHING-vegetables are not allowed.

Back to Serious Business everyone!

[noonie]

Response to Offspring argument: Plenty of people fall in love with sterile women.

--------

not all people are aware they are sterile when love happens. not all infertile men or women disclose that information before love happens.

anyway, homosexuality is a more than human attribute. not just the having sex with the same gender but actually mating in a way comparable to human love. especially in birds it seems. male couples and female couples will nest with each other.

a little while ago there was something about gay flamingoes adopting an abandoned or orphaned chick at a sanctuary or zoo. that leads me to believe that offspring is coming into play as the male flamingo couple would chase other flamingoes away from eggs and nests and basically try to reverse cuckoo the situation.

i think most creatures have a desire to pass their genes on and that's part of why most species that reproduce sexually do have a far higher population of heterosexual members. humans can just choose to ignore that for other comforts such as companionship and love. and maybe a great blowjob.

[IQLCXS]

There's an awful lot of rudeness in this thread. It's rather disappointing, really.

But still, the topic is fascinating. I've had this conversation with quite a few of my friends, and it's interesting to hear it treated so differently by folk on the interweb.

I've never met a female that I've gotten to know well who hasn't agreed to being at least possibly bisexual. I certainly couldn't say for myself that I'm solely hetero or homo sexual. There's no "ick" factor involved, female bodies can be quite lovely, and there's no particular reason for me to say that I couldn't be attracted by one or the other. I think part of the problem is the definition. I have female friends that I love, and male friends that I love. And some folk say that one gender or the other they'd "never" have sex with. I wouldn't. I think that on some level, every person you want to spend time with, you're attracted to. And why should that be limited to, or against, sexual attraction, after all?

What's the real difference between platonic and non-platonic friendships? Is there one? If so, why? And I'm not talking about evolutionarily speaking. Because though our development as humans has led us to have sex with folk so we could have children and pro-create, that means next to nothing at this point. Humanity is not so strictly bound by evolutionary rules anymore - the stupid don't die, they work in fast food (only arguably better than death). The ugly don't fail to procreate - they get plastic surgery (unless they're also poor, implying they were also stupid, and unable to get money). The weak don't die either - modern science can change everything. Admittedly that's a weak answer to evolution, but to say "it's right because history made it so" seems small-minded.

And men, if you're saying or thinking "ick, man's bodies, gross", how do you think women feel? Women who were more traditionally raised with barbie doll dresses and glitter glue fall just as easily for a dirty, hairy, man's man as a tomboy does. It has never made any difference to women, men can be studly, muscled, lanky, or portly, and still be handsome to women (or not handsome, as the case may be!). But heterosexual men, who are traditionally raised to enjoy playing in the mud, find men too ugly? I don't buy it. Nor do I believe it's that simple.

That said, I'm not sure if I'm bisexual. I don't know that I would be able to have a stable long term relationship with someone of the same gender. Females are attractive, but I don't know that they would have in their personality the things that I need and am looking for. People tend to be completed by their opposites, by those who think closely enough to think completely differently. And opposites tend to be found in, well, an opposite gender. Because though you may have similar interests, you will have had fundamentally different experiences because of the differences inherent in your genes, at least in this day and age.

but I think I understand what the OP was trying to say. I'm not convinced there's anything *wrong* with being one sexuality or the other, or both. But, as enlightened folk, isn't it our duty to give a rational look at different perspectives? Especially those which we feel initially so disagreeable towards, for instinctual reasons?

[GhostWolfe]

There's an awful lot of rudeness in this thread. It's rather disappointing, really.

Clearly, you didn't know anfurny too well

[Mighty Jalapeno]

I'm sure anfurny knows himself quite well.

[Brian]

I'm sure anfurny knows himself quite well.

Beat me to it. You win one(1) internets.

[lorenith]

The whole point is...well silly if you ask me.

Why?

Because if you look at cultures where they encourage certain "homosexual" acts as a part of reaching manhood the same percentage of people are homosexual as in cultures where it is frowned upon.

At least that's what this nifty handout from my sociology class says after its done going over statistics.

If the point is missed, basically it's that while people might grow up in a culture where doing certain acts is encouraged to reach maturity, most people when given a chance to pursue a mate will go for the opposite sex and never perform "homosexual" acts again out of choice. (In other words they are not attracted to the same sex for whatever reason).

[Azrael]

I've never met a female that I've gotten to know well who hasn't agreed to being at least possibly bisexual.

All that this really shows (not proves, though) is that you only chose to become close friends with women who think they might be bisexual. It says NOTHING about women as a whole.

What's the real difference between platonic and non-platonic friendships? Is there one? If so, why?

Real difference? Desire to have sex with the individual in question.
Is there one? Um ... yes. The desire to have sex with someone.
Why? Biology. See previous posts.

Because though our development as humans has led us to have sex with folk so we could have children and pro-create, that means next to nothing at this point.

This sentiment is so daringly ... silly. Have you ever meat a women who wants to have children, even though she does not yet have a romantic partnership? The desire to procreate cannot be dismissed just because we can also have recreational sex. Especially when someone is arguing that the desire to procreate establishes the boundaries for those with whom we choose to have recreational sex.

Humanity is not so strictly bound by evolutionary rules anymore.

Natural selection has indeed been stymied, to a degree. But that does not mean that behaviors and instincts developed throughout the history of the species have no effect anymore. I said it earlier -- a few hundred years of enlightenment does not undo hundreds of thousands of years of development.

But heterosexual men, who are traditionally raised to enjoy playing in the mud, find men too ugly? I don't buy it. Nor do I believe it's that simple.

No, we weren't raised in mud. Keep the sexist generalizations and stereotypes in check, thank you.

Anyhow, I find that most men will admit that they can tell if a man is attractive or not. But recognizing what women find attractive and being attracted to the same thing are two completely separate ideas. And no, it's clearly not as simple as men not wanting to have sex with other men because they aren't physically attracted to them.

But, as enlightened folk, isn't it our duty to give a rational look at different perspectives? Especially those which we feel initially so disagreeable towards, for instinctual reasons?

You're afurny's new account, aren't you? IP masked to circumvent the ban hammer? Anyhow, the real reason this fellows ideas were so poorly received had nothing to do with the ideas, per se. It had to do with his tone, arrogance, ignorance and repeated desire to tell us what we should be doing -- or so people have said.

Oh, and thank you for recognizing that humans can have instinctual reactions that override their rational brains. Funny, that.

[IQLCXS]

No, we weren't raised in mud. Keep the sexist generalizations and stereotypes in check, thank you.

I'm just speaking from common older parenting practices here. (Not saying men/boys are always muddy or whatever. I know quite a few neat, ironed, and clean men myself.) [Oh, and she doth protest too much.] Anecdotally, I have eight brothers, and I know for a fact that my parents expected them to play outside, and me to wear dresses and stay clean. I'm not saying this is acceptable, of course, just that if you look at a lot of slightly older (70s-early 90s) culture, movies, and whatnot, you'll see the boys out playing baseball and the girls sitting on the bench playing with girl toys. Society dictated that was the case, not me. And for all the people who did their own thing, I'm very happy. I obviously did, or I would still be in dresses studying liberal arts instead of engineering and computer science.

Anyhow, the real reason this fellows ideas were so poorly received had nothing to do with the ideas, per se. It had to do with his tone, arrogance, ignorance and repeated desire to tell us what we should be doing -- or so people have said.

I don't know much/anything about his past posts, I just read this one after coming on board because of the "Alone" comic, but some people do have an unfortunate tendency to use a tone of voice that is overly formal when they're really passionate about something. It tends to piss people off.

All that this really shows (not proves, though) is that you only chose to become close friends with women who think they might be bisexual. It says NOTHING about women as a whole.

Eh, it probably shows that my females friends are somewhat counter-culture. I won't argue the sample size and distribution is poor. Perhaps I'm way off for the general populace, without further study on the matter, I've no further comments on that.

I think what the rest of your and my disagreement boils down to is more about the basis of the question than the answer. Evolution has effect, yes. Evolution would likely predispose us to heterosexuality, yes. Instinct often overrides the brain in sexual (and other) matters, yes. I was just positing an alternate logic based position that calls into question how much of our sexual biases are caused by our environment. Because if they are environmentally based, it seems like. Well. Maybe we're missing out? Or maybe we're just making life harder on ourselves.

This is a discussion, after all. Maybe we should switch sides now and argue from the other person's perspective. I hear that's what the Wright brothers did.

[Specter]

Just to clear things up. . . Ducks, lizards, and all birds are ovoviviporous (possibly wrong spelling). . . They have one hole that they pee poop and reproduce out of. The female ducks lay their eggs and the male ducks "spray" their sperm on the egg, fertilizing it. Both have internal reproductive organs.

Please keep in mind I'm not an expert in fact I think I just read a wierd picture book about it.

[Dibley]

Dunno about ducks, but I have raised chickens all my life. They most definitely copulate, and that does not involve the female laying an egg and the male spraying it with sperm. It in fact involves the male chasing down the female (most chicken sex is rape), subduing her, and proceeding to do something humpish (hard to make out the details) while standing on her. Why is this relevant again?