BS: the demise of the boring thread

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 14 - 08:55 AM

Why do you misquote me?

I said, "Musket can give chapter and verse on the specific reasons for refusal of that one paper, even though the journal guarantees absolute confidentiality, and he splurges it over an internet forum."

You did give the specific reasons why the paper was rejected by BMJ, so where did you get that information TC?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 May 14 - 04:11 AM

Lack of proof does not mean it is not true

Of course not, but this is just the latest in a pattern of wildly improbable claims that appear to support his views, but no evidence can be produced.

If this paper was submitted to BMJ it was one of "7000-8000" every year of which only 7% are accepted.
Musket can give chapter and verse on the specific reasons for refusal of that one paper, even though the journal guarantees absolute confidentiality, and he splurges it over an internet forum.

Of course it might be true, and is not even the most outrageous of his many such claims, but I think a jury would conclude that he made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 14 - 02:04 PM

I have no idea if what anyone says on here is true unless I know about it already. I will occasionally see something that interests me and look it up but I will not take anything I find on Google as the truth. Funny thing is that I believe what Musket says, even if he cannot prove it. Lack of proof does not mean it is not true. I also believe what Keith says but, as Keith knows, I set no store whatsoever by government statistics and those supplied by parties with their own agenda. I could be proved wrong on either or both counts but I take that chance. They are both nice guys in their own way and, provided they buy ne a pint, I would have a drink with tem (See, practicing my new Yorkshire status :-) )

What I do know is that these discussions go nowhere. The mods must get sick of them. They must get even more sick of people joining in the fight and then whinging that the other party is not playing fair. If anyone expects to stir the shit and not create a foul atmosphere they are seriously deluded.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 14 - 01:16 PM

Keith, I have given up addressing Ian, he is a proven liar.
How can we have an adult discussion when he fills his posts with babble and lies.
You have caught him out on at least ten occasions to my knowledge.

I'm sure most people can see how he misrepresents anything he doesn't agree with and even if they don't agree with what we say on different subjects, they must see the pointlessness of taking him seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 12:32 PM

"BMJ editors treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not divulge information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors' permission."
http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 11:13 AM

So TC, you can not produce anything at all to support your improbable claims about that paper and the BMJ and other journals.

I am sure that no-one is in the least surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 08:43 AM

I'll take that as an apology.

I know it wasn't, but it was about as good as you can get from him.

I must be going mad I know, but I thought about your posts Keith, about an hour ago.

I was in a meeting and someone picked up a paper we were discussing that was written by MOD, and not anyone in their medical side, about field hospitals and trauma.

He dropped it back on the table and said that as a microbiologist he has seen a lot of runny poo in his time but this takes the arse biscuit.

It made me giggle.

Then I thought of some of your posts on aspects of healthcare. And then some of your posts about the military looking after their soldiers.

Then I laughed out loud...

Probably the first time ever I thought of Mudcat when playing in the real world. Pity the subject couldn't be a better one mind, but as my Uncle Albert used to say, "if arseholes were gold, only the rich would have them."

Your posts are true 24 carat....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 06:49 AM

TC's link is to a search result for "Health and Social Care Act 2008"

A bit random TC!

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 06:46 AM

Basically, Keith was asking about editorial credibility with professional obligations in healthcare

No I was not.
I was asking for evidence for your claim about a research paper.
"It was sent for assessment and possible publication to The New England Journal of Medicine and over here, to The BMJ and Lancet.
It was rejected by BMJ on two counts. Failure to declare anti gay political donations by two of the authors and making unsubstantiated conclusions from the evidence."

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:55 AM

And for anyone actually interested in the subject rather than blustering their way of of looking foolish in true Hertford fashion..

Lets get boring

Basically, Keith was asking about editorial credibility with professional obligations in healthcare. The act of Parliament the link goes to includes the obligation to register to be able to carry out healthcare. Within that, there is a regulation (Regulation 9 - Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated activities) Regulations 2010.

This requires providers of healthcare to ensure that treatment reflects published research evidence and guidance issued by the appropriate professional and expert bodies. The Care Quality Commission inspectorate, which Musket was an advisor to up till recently, defines what is appropriate.

The British Medical Journal is deemed appropriate due to their editorial policy. Knowing their editorial policy intimately, my assertion Keith refers to is robust, and has, incidentally been tested in a tribunal. To help my friend "Seaham Cemetry (sic)) here, the only American journal that passes the test is The New England Journal of Medicine.

For info as to why other publications from The USA receive a healthy dose of suspicion, I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's wonderful book, Bad Science.

Incidentally, a recent publication in The BMJ on statins made headlines as a paper was cited in another paper that was not to the standard required. As the reputation and importance of The BMJ is so critical to evidence based healthcare planing and delivery, this small oversight made big news.

Hence Keith's liberal interpretations and fanciful conclusions on anything from WW1 fairy stories to public health statistics would be potentially damaging if a) he had any credibility and b) had a large enough audience. As he dabbles with right wing politics, best nip it in the bud. This is grown up stuff Keith. Stick to British Bulldogs in the playground eh?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:40 AM

You lied again TC.
My link exposed it.
Your link is as worthless as all your previous non-substantiations.

Your "joke" is pathetic too.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:24 AM

TC, here is where I asked you the question, and you never even refer to it, never mind answer it.
So your last claim was completely untrue TC.
No answer yet.
thread.cfm?threadid=154487&messages=187&page=1&desc=yes#3626365

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 14 - 02:05 AM

"...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur..." GfS

Quite likely they develop the hormonal changes when they decide to be gay.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 May 14 - 01:22 AM

Question put to "Musket" 4 days ago,
"It seems extraordinarily improbable that the group quoted by Ake would choose the BMJ to publish their paper.
Where did you get that info about the rejection?"

No answer supplied.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:48 PM

?



Thinks I am in the army now

TC

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:40 PM

"Seaham Cemetry" how do you know that "The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views."

A few days ago I asked you (with your Musket hat on) how you knew that BMJ had refused to publish a paper and the reasons.

Perhaps we might have an answer this time?
I do not mind from which hat.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 02:52 PM

When I was in high school, the student productions—the annual operetta, like "The Fortune Teller" and "Showboat," the Senior Play like "You Can't Take It With You" and "Our Town,," and other productions were practically professional quality and many of those who acted, sang, and danced in these productions went on to Great Things. Movies, Broadway, Seattle and San Francisco Opera…….. Not all those who participated were gay, but a fair number of them were. Much higher percentage than the general population.

Suppress and alienate these folks and we ALL lose!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 02:13 PM

My interest in this subject is not, and never has been, motivated by politics. I have known gay people all my life. Some of the best singers, actors, and dancers I knew in high school didn't date girls—or anyone for that matter—they devoted themselves to their art. One guy, into ballet, eventually started his own ballet company and it is now world renowned. Others went on to do some pretty great things in the performing arts, and two of the sharpest attorneys I am acquainted with are gay.

A guy that my wife dated a lot when she was in high school was gay. She dated him because he was intelligent and interesting (a budding authority on the Civil War and the history of the British monarchy, and he eventually made his living tutoring the children of rich people), had a good personality and was fun in general—and she didn't have to go through the usual unwanted wrestling match in the back seat of the car. He eventually met a guy in theater arts who taught set and prop design in a college in California (and who also worked on the sets and props for several movies). They moved in together, bought a house, are solid tax paying citizens, and have been living together for a couple of decades.

Although I don't share their particular orientation, some of the brightest, most talented people I have known have been gay.   And it sets me to grinding my teeth when certain people look down on them and want to deny them the rights and privileges enjoyed by "straight" people simply because they object to their "life-style" when it in no way affects them.

The POLITICS is introduced by those who wish to deny gays and lesbians the same rights that are enjoyed by "straight" people.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 May 14 - 01:33 PM

GfS, let me ask you this:   why do you object so strongly to the idea that sexual orientation could be the result of a gene or combination of genes?

True, they have not yet found a definitive "gay gene" (although there are some that tend to arouse suspicion), but the research is not finished yet, and they could nail it any day now.

Recently there has been the suspicion that they might be looking in the wrong place. Perhaps the gene(s) is carried by the mother and governs the timing of the release of hormones in utero.

It's very premature to simply deny the existence of a "gay gene."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 01:10 PM

Ebbie, After i posted my last post, I thought I should clarify something I said..when I posted, "...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur, as Don also noted." I am referring to the changes in the size in the brain, not to the development of the nervous system and/or receptors.

...and Musket, my issues are not with the homosexuals per se, but rather all the political noise which seems to want to drown out hard data....AND even the 'religious' rhetoric that ignores understanding when dealing with compassion.
They both have led, and contributed to hostile divisions.

Got an appointment...consider it..then get back.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:50 PM

Interesting that Goofus shouts "politico!" when someone who knows what they are talking about weighs in....

The biology is interesting. The stance trying to be concluded from it stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:23 PM

Ebbie: "G, (I'm being polite) aren't "hormones" and "at birth" saying the same thing?"

Hormones effecting the fetus's development to the receptors and nervous system would have a direct effect on how or what we perceive....and possibly any effect on the brain, which I'm open to...but, as noted in my previous post, there appears to be unsupported data as to WHEN those changes occur, as Don also noted.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 12:17 PM

Let me 'clarify'...by 'everything' I meant everything in quotation marks from the studies. If you have differences, I suggest you read the actual link from what was hailed as the 'latest breakthrough studies' as heralded by the article from the 'UK Guardian'.
At issue is 'genetics' but no gene has been identified conclusively.
brain differences(from Don's post, 1st 'CLICKY'), but it doesn't appear that that has been supported by actual data provided...merely as Don posted, "I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

What is known, and supported by most all studies, is that hormones, produced by the mother, during pregnancy, has a direct affect, and in the posted link, by Dave and Don, is this direct quote, "While genes do CONTRIBUTE to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

It just appears that what has been 'rumored' by the politicos, about the 'cause' of homosexuality, is not supported by the very link studies posted...nor their seems to be inconsistencies as to how much physiological changes were present AT BIRTH.

My contention, is that the stressed hormonal environment during pregnancy, in which the nervous system is being formed, would have a direct effect on the receptors in the nervous system, and I'm open to the brain differences, posted by Don, being as the brain is part of the nervous system.

I do not align myself with a 'religious', nor 'political' stance...that being said, there could be certain consistencies with either or both.
So what are they???...and..why would either of them base their emphatic 'opinions' on unsupported and/or conflicting data???...or is it just unsupported political bias, trying to appear as 'common knowledge'???
...and if that's the case, using that unsupported bias to enact laws and policies, on fabrications??
Wouldn't you be, 'at least curious'??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:45 AM

"...but we DO know that the hormones have an effect, which I've maintained all along, AND you also seem to be inclined to concur...am I correct??

So if you got something that verifies that they could be determined at birth, I'm listening....." GfS

G, (I'm being polite) aren't "hormones" and "at birth" saying the same thing?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:32 AM

Seaham Cemetry: "Most of what Guest from Sanity alludes to is discredited at every level. The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views but has published many that blow away some of the myths."

Interesting..because EVERYTHING I posted was a cut and paste from the studies that was posted by Dave the Gnome and Don Firth...which tends to discredit everything you just tried to lay out in your post. If you have something different, post it, instead of alleging your personal opinion based on what appears to be a political bias.
Fair enough??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Seaham Cemetry
Date: 19 May 14 - 06:50 AM

I have been involved with many research projects as a medical doctor, and due to my military career I have been able to carry it out in many countries. Medics around the world refuse to agree with the search for fault. Curiosity about what may be genetic, hard wired or otherwise, but not in order to find defect. Similar work goes on to identify susceptibility to social traits of all types.

Most of what Guest from Sanity alludes to is discredited at every level. The New England Journal of Medicine doesnt publish papers that concur with such views but has published many that blow away some of the myths.

You will have to look at Christian group publications to find most of it, and that isnt evidence based, unless JC has popped up again and I never noticed?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 05:52 AM

Oh, so the mouth is a part of the reproductive system now is it? (Thinking on, getting laid begins with "Yeah, yeah, of course I love you and will respect you afterwards"...)

Why different though? I know some fairly effeminate men who are heterosexual and I know some big hairy rough buggers who prefer other men.

How are you defining it? by a sex act? What about gay for pay porn stars? You have far more of them in your country so perhaps can speak with more confidence than me, but most porn stars, especially women but some men too, have sex with people of both genders.

How does that fit in your ABC Guide to Eugenics?

Are you identifying purely through sex?

You have a seedy side that isn't exactly well hidden Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:07 AM

"Since when was choosing a life partner of the same sex "abnormal?"

I qualified 'abnormal' with including the words 'or different', in reference to Don's comment on the brains appearing similar to a lesbian's. Being as they are not 'physiologically' female, nor 'lesbians', but they are showing variations from 'normal' male brains, I think one could get away using the terminology of 'abnormal' or 'different' Note: When I first used it, and still do, I put it in quotation marks, for those who may find it questionable..Fair enough??

"Since when was choosing a life partner intrinsically linked to procreation?"

Well you might be able to figure that one out. Look up 'Reproductive System'...and then figure out how that is involved with the 'sex act'.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:29 AM

Since when was choosing a life partner of the same sex "abnormal?"

Since when was choosing a life partner intrinsically linked to procreation?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:09 AM

Firth: "I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

Wait a minute...you were emphatic about the actual, physical brain showing differences, I believe in the hypothalamus, and that was for that 'percentage' of those who were 'born that way'...so now were back to square one....though in the study that both you and Dave posted, they have this quote(or quotes....let me go pull them up....hold on.....>>>>>>........OK..)Here:

""While genes do CONTRIBUTE to sexual orientation, OTHER MULTIPLE FACTORS PLAY A GREATER role, perhaps including the levels of hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb."

"We found evidence for two sets [of genes] that affect whether a man is gay or straight. But it is NOT COMPLETELY DETERMINATIVE; there are certainly OTHER environmental factors involved."

"Last year, before the latest results were made public, one of Bailey's colleagues, Alan Sanders, said the findings could not and should not be used to develop a test for sexual orientation."

"When people say there's a gay gene, it's an oversimplification," Sanders said. "There's more than one gene, and genetics is NOT the whole story. Whatever gene CONTRIBUTES to sexual orientation, you can think of it as much as contributing to HETEROSEXUALITY as much as you can think of it contributing to homosexuality. It contributes to a variation in the trait."

So, it sounds as if the brain WAS 'abnormal' or 'different' in the womb, or before birth, it should be measurable, according to your post with three 'Clickies'...the first 'CLICKY' I believe..SOOOO....you may be correct, when you said:

"I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later."

So in light of THAT comment, which I could be in agreement with, how can it be said, and who is saying, that they were 'born that way'??

As far as 'genetics' go this is from the 'latest breakthrough study':


"..and then it says, (Now pay attention) "Not all of the gay men in Bailey's study inherited the same Xq28 region. The genes were NEITHER SUFFICIENT, Nor NECESSARY, to MAKE ANY of the men gay."

...and this, "That means even a perfect genetic test that picked up EVERY GENE LINKED to sexual orientation would still be LESS EFFECTIVE THAN FLIPPING A COIN."

Now I wasn't even going to go there, BUT here we are again....born that way 'PHYSIOLOGICALLY'??...or not??

....but we DO know that the hormones have an effect, which I've maintained all along, AND you also seem to be inclined to concur...am I correct??

So if you got something that verifies that they could be determined at birth, I'm listening.....

BTW, Respectfully...
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:21 PM

Both.

The point should be made that the "abnormalities" consisted of the brains of homosexuals having certain characteristics of the opposite sex. Which is to say, male homosexuals' brains had certain characteristics of the female brain, the brains of lesbians showed some characteristics typical of the male brains.

I don't think brain scientists know yet whether these difference existed at birth or came later.

And whether they should be characterized as "abnormalities" is, perhaps, questionable.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:29 PM

"Are you commenting about the ones from the study that showed 'abnormalities' in the brain, which was just a percentage, of those tested?...or all of the others who claim they were born that way from birth??" GfS

Whut?? "abnormalities of the brain?" "others born that way?"

Aren't you speaking of both? Or do you mean that the abnormalities occurred later?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:22 PM

But then, according to cigarette ads back about fifty years ago, "Nine out of ten doctors prefer Camels."

Don Firth

(P. S.   I shouldn't do that. It will only confuse, Goofus......)

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:17 PM

Most members of the human race are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex.

But a relatively small percentage of members of the human race are attracted to members of their own sex.

Indeed, when I said "some," I was referring to this relatively small percentage.

In ALL cased, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting.

Clear now?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Jeri
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:02 PM

You're telling him he should have said what he said? Or just explaining that "some" isn't the same as "everybody"?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:54 PM

Firth: "....but some are attracted to members of their own sex."

"Some" is not everybody...so clean that up to be precise.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:39 PM

By they way, when I say "everybody," I mean heterosexuals also.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:10 PM

Everybody. Not just those in the studies.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:50 PM

Firth: "Agreed. But the issue is that most people are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to members of their own sex. There, too, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting. Choice. BUT one has little control over the initial attraction."

"...BUT one has little control over the initial attraction."
Are you commenting about the ones from the study that showed 'abnormalities' in the brain, which was just a percentage, of those tested?...or all of the others who claim they were born that way from birth??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Nick
Date: 18 May 14 - 02:46 PM

A friend happened to post this today which I hadn't seen before.

Tillett Wright talks about sexuality and the Self Evident Truths Project

18 minutes well spent for me

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:47 PM

GfS:   "People are attracted to each other for a number of reasons..that's all, and in that, it is up to each individual whether to act upon that, wouldn't you say? Nobody is forcing them to act upon it, nobody is forcing a choice one way or the other...and sometimes, or often, those people have their inclinations."

Agreed. But the issue is that most people are sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, but some are attracted to members of their own sex. There, too, one can act on the attraction or refrain from acting. Choice. BUT one has little control over the initial attraction.

THAT is the issue. Who one is attracted to is not a matter of choice. No point in arguing the matter. It's just a fact.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:56 AM

Ask Woody Woodpecker.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:58 AM

How do you compromise with Daffy Duck?

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:31 AM

....guess it comes when one squanders an opportunity for compromises...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:09 AM

Which in some ways is a blessing.

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:31 AM

D.F.: "Some people do, I suppose. Perhaps that's your way. Not mine."

OK..but 'some' ...

Sorry in answering this one late, but Mudcat was going through a 'slow loading period, again.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:20 AM

Well, it wasn't a ploy...it was straightforward, as a response to your post. People are attracted to each other for a number of reasons..that's all, and in that, it is up to each individual whether to act upon that, wouldn't you say? Nobody is forcing them to act upon it, nobody is forcing a choice one way or the other...and sometimes, or often, those people have their inclinations.
Fair enough? (If I'm not, tell me where you're having reservations). I'm not 'luring' you into anything..I think we've moved into another level of dialogue...and based on what you've put out there, we got enough....now we just got to sift through it, and confirm the consistencies, and hopefully discard what is not needed. OK?...and, as long as we're at this juncture, we have enough history of bias vs facts vs consensus vs popular nonsense to be able to kick ass for everyone's benefit, wouldn't you say?

GfS

P.S....unless politics keeps everyone stuck in mid-air...which it tends to do, but that is another subject for another time....

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 11:34 PM

Goofus:   "……some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??"

Some people do, I suppose. Perhaps that's your way. Not mine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: Don Firth
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:18 PM

"Inclinations of attraction." Alfred Kinsey covered that pretty thoroughly back in the mid-1950s. What, precisely, are you getting at, Goofus?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: the demise of the boring thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 May 14 - 05:29 PM

D.F.: "Whether one is heterosexual OR homosexual, and assuming a willing partner, one always has the choice of whether to have sex or not.
THAT is not the kind of choice we're talking about."

That is NOT a spin. To illustrate that further, some people have sex, for sex sake, and not because they particularly 'love' that person...correct??

Come on now, we're blowing the lid off some pretty huge misconceptions(no pun intended).

As far as choice, how about 'inclinations of attraction'??

GfS