Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (31147)	2/18/1999 10:48:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

{Now where are my those charts and graphs I had . . .) You aren't Ross Perot in disguise, are you? <VBG> Keep in mind that a lot of Kinsey's numbers have been shown to be "cooked" to prove a point. Also that hyperactivity by a few can skew the normal curve, and that men, in general, tend to overreport and women, particularly at the time of the Kinsey report, tended to underreport.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (31147)	2/18/1999 10:52:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Does anybody still have a copy of The Hite Report?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (31147)	2/18/1999 10:54:00 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

No, my statement about whatever patch of ground will hold still for a second was hyperbole. The drive to sow seed widely will obviously be mediated by other sorts of evolutionarily 'sanctioned' drives, such as that not to have one's resources channeled away from one's wife's children (who are more certain to be one's actual children, btw, and to be being raised optimally, genetically speaking), not to get sick, not to lose the central relationship, not to waste time that could be more productively used elsewhere... I'm sure you agree in principle that males are by nature more sexually promiscuous than females, though that nature is mediated by other considerations.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (31147)	2/18/1999 11:20:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

<<I believe there is a psychological element, a neurotic component, that overlays and completes the big picture of hyperpromiscuity among gay males.>> I would tend to agree with this, although I would not support any argument that it is a dysfunction on its own. I think any repressed group tends to rebel and perhaps overdo when a glimpse of freedom is had. I think in a way that this is unfortunate, because the outrageous aspect of gay pride parades, for example, feeds the anti-homosexual agenda of the far right in this country. I do think it is understandable, however. Do you know anything about the episode at the Stonewall bar in New York in, I believe it was 1969, where a bunch of homosexuals rebelled against police who were harassing them? This was a beginning of the nascent civil rights movement among gays, and as you can see it was only thirty years ago. You might remember that the early feminists were pretty obnoxious in their own way, refusing to shave their underarms or legs, or wear bras. Rebellion tends to be strident when it is new. When you add the alcohol and drug abuse that some homosexuals exhibit, and the desire to kill psychic pain by escapist activities, it is not really surprising that many of them are promiscuous, or neurotic. This does not mean they are dysfunctional as a group, however, and should not mean that they are deprived of basic human rights. Your anecdotal stories of you and some acquaintances performing in bars and not going home with every woman in sight is refreshing, but does not in itself mean that heterosexuals are healthy and normal, and homosexuals are neither.