Support NeoGAF

[Dead Man]

It's both.

http://www.ted.com/talks/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html

After all, acne has never been hot nor is having a large birth mark all across your face. No gross deformity is hot. Ever.



WTF? This is personal for you now? lol

You don't see that acne is a visual indicator of health? You didn't understand that there are very few features of what the west considers beautiful, especially in facial features, that are explainable by darwinism? You really didn't understand that?

 

[Instigator]

Scars.

Amputee fetishists.

Also, if all sex drive unerringly points toward conception, explain homosexuality, oral, and anal sex.

Explain suicide!

Humans, like all creatures, come in lots of variety. Some will be evolutionary dead-ends.

You don't see that acne is a visual indicator of health? You didn't understand that there are very few features of what the west considers beautiful, especially in facial features, that are explainable by darwinism? You really didn't understand that?

lol

Acne is a skin disease. At its worst, it's a disfiguring one.

 

[Carcetti]

If all goes well, there will be two by fall

Grats! I got two myself, and I was asking since often in boards like these people who have the strongest opinions about child raising etc are still underage and not (hopefully) likely to procreate any time soon.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Explain suicide!

Humans, like all creatures, come in lots of variety. Some will be evolutionary dead-ends.

I do not have to explain suicide, because I have not made the absurd claim that every human action is driven by evolutionary logic.

Color me unconvinced by your sudden embrace of diversity.

No gross deformity is hot. Ever.

This does not seem to create room for "evolutionary dead ends."

Deep down, do you want a young, fit, curvatious woman or would you happily settle for a saggier, middle-aged woman past menopause? Your genes most likely make you want the former because she's much more likely to give you children.

If diversity is possible and evolutionary imperatives do not have complete control over the sex drive, then yes, it's very much possible that "deep down" fertility does not determine his sex drive.

I think the point he's making is that the reason we are attracted to what we are attracted to comes down to a genetic disposition to procreate. His point, not mine. Just trying to clarify it since I think I know what he's getting at.

Bingo.

You have just contradicted your own bingo. You have conceded that there are attractions that do not necessarily derive from a genetic disposition to procreate.

 

[Dead Man]

I do not have to explain suicide, because I have not made the absurd claim that every human action is driven by evolutionary logic.

Color me unconvinced by your sudden embrace of diversity.




This does not seem to create room for "evolutionary dead ends."




If diversity is possible and evolutionary imperatives do not have complete control over the sex drive, then yes, it's very much possible that "deep down" fertility does not determine his sex drive.





You have just contradicted your own bingo. You have conceded that there are attractions that do not necessarily derive from a genetic disposition to procreate.

I hope you have more success than I had.

 

[Joni]

Yes, even if it is only for the fact that natural child birth wouldn't be an option. (Ideally before marriage.)

 

[Instigator]

I do not have to explain suicide, because I have not made the absurd claim that every human action is driven by evolutionary logic.

Color me unconvinced by your sudden embrace of diversity.

I didn't make that claim either. In the last few pages, I've merely talked about attraction, procreation, child-bearing and rearing.

And I don't "embrace" diversity, I just recognize it exists.

This does not seem to create room for "evolutionary dead ends."

If they exist and don't procreate, they are literally evolutionary dead-ends. Sorry if that offends you.

If diversity is possible and evolutionary imperatives do not have complete control over the sex drive, then yes, it's very much possible that "deep down" fertility does not determine his sex drive.

You have just contradicted your own bingo. You have conceded that there are attractions that do not necessarily derive from a genetic disposition to procreate.

Point was already made earlier by others and shot down.

Pay closer attention next time.

 

[Grinchy]

I don't mean to speak for Instigator again, but I assume he'll have no problem admitting that people are attracted to many different things for many reasons, with procreation being a common and basic reason.

I think a lot of this discussion has taken place because of comments made that people who were aren't attracted to transgendered people only felt that way because of their phobia of transgendered people. However, a person who is not attracted to transgendered people is not necessarily any more phobic of transgendered people than a person who is not attracted to amputees is necessarily phobic of amputees. (I did not create the amputee comparison, that was mentioned above)




*edit - damn instigator i didn't think you were gonna be back that soon lol

 

[Dead Man]

If they exist and don't procreate, they are literally evolutionary dead-ends. Sorry if that offends you.

Oh god, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? This has gone from frustrating to absurdly amusing.

Try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I didn't make that claim either. In the last few pages, I've merely talked about attraction, procreation, child-bearing and rearing.

As a matter of fact, you did.

I think the point he's making is that the reason we are attracted to what we are attracted to comes down to a genetic disposition to procreate. His point, not mine. Just trying to clarify it since I think I know what he's getting at.

Bingo.

If they exist and don't procreate, they are literally evolutionary dead-ends. Sorry if that offends you.

I am not disputing your characterization of them as "evolutionary dead ends." There is much to dispute about that, as Dead Man's post above indicates, but that's not an argument I'm interested in winning. What I am disputing is a post that claimed these "evolutionary dead ends" do not exist. Specifically this one.

No gross deformity is hot. Ever.

Do some people find gross deformities hot? Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. Therefore sexual desire that is not determined by evolutionary imperatives exist. And if that's the case, I'm struggling to see what your point is. I'm guessing you want to use evolutionary theories to privilege your sexuality over others', but as any first-year PhD candidate in evolutionary biology can tell you, evolution is descriptive, not normative. It does not describe how we should be or create a blueprint for action; it describes the world as it is.

Point was already made earlier by others and shot down.

Pay closer attention next time.

You are free to dodge substantive critiques by erroneously claiming you have dealt with them, but the record is clear to anyone who cares to look.

 

[Instigator]

I don't mean to speak for Instigator again, but I assume he'll have no problem admitting that people are attracted to many different things for many reasons, with procreation being a common and basic reason.

I think a lot of this discussion has taken place because of comments made that people who were aren't attracted to transgendered people only felt that way because of their phobia of transgendered people. However, a person who is not attracted to transgendered people is not necessarily any more phobic of transgendered people than a person who is not attracted to amputees is necessarily phobic of amputees. (I did not create the amputee comparison, that was mentioned above)

*edit - damn instigator i didn't think you were gonna be back that soon lol

It's ok and your reminder of how this talk started is appreciated. I do enjoy seeing people making a big fuss out of this.

Oh god, you really don't know what you are talking about, do you? This has gone from frustrating to absurdly amusing.

Try these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection

Actually, I agree with all those links, though we're down to minutiae here and there are big ifs and buts when it comes to humans.

Take for example, kin selection, I know it exists in humans. A sibling has similar DNA as you have and it's a little victory for you if he/she passes down his/her genes. However, there's no sense in sacrificing your lineage for the benefit of a sibling if you can pass down your own genes at no real expense to your nephews/nieces. And since this discussion is about humans, most likely in well off, Western countries, then that point is even more relevant.

So, are you done, Dead Man?

As a matter of fact, you did.

the absurd claim that every human action is driven by evolutionary logic.

No, I still didn't make that claim. The discussion has been pretty restricted to a few key points.

I am not disputing your characterization of them as "evolutionary dead ends." There is much to dispute about that, as Dead Man's post above indicates, but that's not an argument I'm interested in winning. What I am disputing is a post that claimed these "evolutionary dead ends" do not exist. Specifically this one.

What? Who's this "one"? You? I don't know who you are. The claim itself?

If they're evolutionary dead-ends, then they must exist, just not long to procreate or they do procreate and produce weaker offsprings that don't procreate, it's the same result. That's what makes them dead ends. Why are we even arguing this?

Do some people find gross deformities hot? Yeah, as a matter of fact, they do. Therefore sexual desire that is not determined by evolutionary imperatives exist. And if that's the case, I'm struggling to see what your point is. I'm guessing you want to use evolutionary theories to privilege your sexuality over others', but as any first-year PhD candidate in evolutionary biology can tell you, evolution is descriptive, not normative. It does not describe how we should be or create a blueprint for action; it describes the world as it is.

Some people eat chalk, others will mutilate themselves. If we both agree that there's diversity in all creatures, including humans, then it goes without saying some will deviate from the norm, sometimes at their peril with no benefit whatsoever. But make no mistake, there is a so-called norm by simply observing what a majority of individuals from the same species actually do.

You are free to dodge substantive critiques by erroneously claiming you have dealt with them, but the record is clear to anyone who cares to look.

Bring them forward and make sure to check if it wasn't already discussed before. Since you've already shown the willingness and time to hunt for random quotes, I know you can do it. Otherwise, don't bother talking to me. I didn't approach and address you. You did.

Edit: got some work to do now, will try to find this thread tomorrow.

 

[Platy]

This is the Venus of Willendorf

It was the ideal of beauty in more primal times (between 24,000 and 22,000 BCE), where we acted WAY more with our evolutionary and biological instincs.

She representes the "most child bearing woman" possible to the point of caricature.

These days she would be called an "ugly fat bitch with ugly tits" by any of those people who, according to people in the last pages, choose their mates based on how awesome child bearer they would be.

Discuss

The cis-prefix, huh? I hope that shit never enters mainstream usage.
I'm a man, not a "cis man", thank you very much.
You don't need to define man and woman anew just because there are trans men and women.
Man, woman, transgender man, transgender woman
Seems pretty straightforward.

Calling you a cis man is the same as calling you heterosexual (or homosexual, but by the "there are no girls on the internet" rule, you are white, male and heterosxual)

It is a matter of people not just saying "trans man and normal man" because of the problems that would rise as justifying prejudice and stuffs like that.
Before the first advances of homosexuals for acceptance, it was "i'm not homosexual, i'm normal !" and this is ....wrong.

Also the diference of a gay man and a hetero man is like 5% of who they are AT MAX, the same with cis man and trans man

 

[scar tissue]

She representes the "most child bearing woman" possible to the point of caricature.

These days she would be called an "ugly fat bitch with ugly tits" by any of those people who, according to people in the last pages, choose their mates based on how awesome child bearer they would be.

Discuss

Imo, she was a goddess of fertility, not necessarily a sex symbol.
Hell, for all we know, she could've been the goddess of fatty foods or something.
Seems a little short-sighted to say she was a sex symbol and representative of what men wanted back then.

 

[Gaborn]

This is the Venus of Willendorf

It was the ideal of beauty in more primal times (between 24,000 and 22,000 BCE), where we acted WAY more with our evolutionary and biological instincs.

She representes the "most child bearing woman" possible to the point of caricature.

These days she would be called an "ugly fat bitch with ugly tits" by any of those people who, according to people in the last pages, choose their mates based on how awesome child bearer they would be.

Discuss

Great example. Another one: The historical practice of foot binding among Chinese women. Beauty ideals have varied widely historically and culturally and the idea that any single standard of beauty might exist simply because western culture as it's own beauty ideal is bordering on nonsensical.

Calling you a cis man is the same as calling you heterosexual (or homosexual, but by the "there are no girls on the internet" rule, you are white, male and heterosxual)

It is a matter of people not just saying "trans man and normal man" because of the problems that would rise as justifying prejudice and stuffs like that.
Before the first advances of homosexuals for acceptance, it was "i'm not homosexual, i'm normal !" and this is ....wrong.

Also the diference of a gay man and a hetero man is like 5% of who they are AT MAX, the same with cis man and trans man

This is correct, but let me put it more simply. The existence of trans people DOES require, if you want to single out trans people a different term of art for non-trans people. Gay people necessitate the term "straight" just as black people necessitate white people.

HOWEVER, these terms and definitions are only necessary really when you feel the need to differentiate. If I say "All men are created equal" I don't just mean white men, or straight men, or x category of men, I mean all men (even if the founding fathers didn't at the time). Heck, I even mean "men" in the "human" sense so I mean female men too. So think of it in that context, it's not overly burdensome to call yourself a straight man when you're discussing an issue with gays, is it?

 

[scar tissue]

Well, at least one trait is absolutely universally valued: symmetry.
Symmetric faces and bodies are always preferred.
Note: Of course, everyone has a slightly bigger body half which is totally normal, I'm talking about haphazard asymmetry (think The Hills have Eyes).

 

[Gaborn]

Well, at least one trait is absolutely universally valued: symmetry.
Symmetric faces and bodies are always preferred.
Note: Of course, everyone has a slightly bigger body half which is totally normal, I'm talking about haphazard asymmetry (think The Hills have Eyes).

That is true, both in the natural world around us and with humans symmetry does seem to be preferred to non-symmetry.

 

[scar tissue]

That is true, both in the natural world around us and with humans symmetry does seem to be preferred to non-symmetry.

I also think different sexual preferences are skewed by environment factors, such as living in constant hunger (leads to fat women being preferred) and the like.
Under ideal conditions, I think the preferred mate would look rather similar for most people.
But of course, nowadays with the PC shit we gotta tell people they're beautiful as they are. lol

 

[Dead Man]

It's ok and your reminder of how this talk started is appreciated. I do enjoy seeing people making a big fuss out of this.



Actually, I agree with all those links, though we're down to minutiae here and there are big ifs and buts when it comes to humans.

Take for example, kin selection, I know it exists in humans. A sibling has similar DNA as you have and it's a little victory for you if he/she passes down his/her genes. However, there's no sense in sacrificing your lineage for the benefit of a sibling if you can pass down your own genes at no real expense to your nephews/nieces. And since this discussion is about humans, most likely in well off, Western countries, then that point is even more relevant.

So, are you done, Dead Man?

With you, certainly. I don't know how you can read something and still misunderstand it so badly. So yeah, I'm done with you, but I will watch with amusement.

 

[Gaborn]

I also think different sexual preferences are skewed by environment factors, such as living in constant hunger (leads to fat women being preferred) and the like.
Under ideal conditions, I think the preferred mate would look rather similar for most people.
But of course, nowadays with the PC shit we gotta tell people they're beautiful as they are. lol

I don't know about that. Even in our society there are still plenty of "chubby chasers" and there is a BBW fetish. Keep in mind our society... actually our society really bifurcates what preferences are ideal. I think for white women the image the media pushes is the ultra thin borderline sickly look. In the black community it's women with large asses that are pushed by the culture.

 

[Devolution]

It saddens me that people still insist breeding is the only driving force in our evolution/biology. And that all decisions/actions that don't directly involve it are not beneficial or not natural. Never mind that we're social animals who take care of our kin.

 

[scar tissue]

It saddens me that people still insist breeding is the only driving force in our evolution/biology. And that all decisions/actions that don't directly involve it are not beneficial or not natural. Never mind that we're social animals who take care of our kin.

Breeding IS the driving force. However, the genetic stuff plays an important role.
e.g.: someone may skip having kids and help their sister tend her kids because that leads to a greater increase in fitness for him. Just like this example, every kind of "altruism" is based on some perceived gain. No such thing as genuinely selfless behavior.
In the end, everyone is here to pass on their genes. Those who don't are a dead end (obviously) and remove themselves from the gene pool quickly.

 

[Pandaman]

This is the Venus of Willendorf
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Willendorf-Venus-1468.jpg/377px-Willendorf-Venus-1468.jpg[IMG]
It was the ideal of beauty in more primal times (between 24,000 and 22,000 BCE), where we acted WAY more with our evolutionary and biological instincs.

She representes the "most child bearing woman" possible to the point of caricature.

These days she would be called an "ugly fat bitch with ugly tits" by any of those people who, according to people in the last pages, choose their mates based on how awesome child bearer they would be.

Discuss[/QUOTE]
this is not 22,000BCE
a modern human in the developed world who is relatively skinny [compared to the venus] does not typically suffer from scarcity and thus weight need no longer be considered in a partners ability to bear children.

 

[Devolution]

Breeding IS the driving force. However, the genetic stuff plays an important role.
e.g.: someone may skip having kids and help their sister tend her kids because that leads to a greater increase in fitness for him. Just like this example, every kind of "altruism" is based on some perceived gain. No such thing as genuinely selfless behavior.
In the end, everyone is here to pass on their genes. Those who don't are a dead end (obviously) and remove themselves from the gene pool quickly.

It's not, nor will it ever be the only factor necessary to our survival.

 

[Uchip]

Breeding IS the driving force. However, the genetic stuff plays an important role.
e.g.: someone may skip having kids and help their sister tend her kids because that leads to a greater increase in fitness for him. Just like this example, every kind of "altruism" is based on some perceived gain. No such thing as genuinely selfless behavior.
In the end, everyone is here to pass on their genes. Those who don't are a dead end (obviously) and remove themselves from the gene pool quickly.

So if i have no drive or intention to have sex/children I have no purpose?
damn

 

[scar tissue]

It's not, nor will it ever be the only factor necessary to our survival.

I don't know what you mean with "our" survival. The survival of the human species is assured, no matter what you or I do.
The survival of your very genes however is in limbo, and the reproduction of you & your close relatives is all that is keeping these genes afloat.

Obviously, being natural doesn't make it a moral imperative.

So if i have no drive or intention to have sex/children I have no purpose?
damn

If you don't help any of your kin rear their children, I'm afraid your genes will be kicked out of the pool and you have failed your evolutionary task.
Don't feel bad tho, it's not a moral imperative at all. I was just explaining why the majority of people feel the way they do about kids, fertility and all.
If you feel you don't want to reproduce, more power to you. The world is overpopulated anyway.

 

[Devolution]

I don't know what you mean with "our" survival. The survival of the human species is assured, no matter what you or I do.
The survival of your very genes however is in limbo, and the reproduction of you & your close relatives is all that is keeping these genes afloat.

Obviously, being natural doesn't make it a moral imperative.



If you don't help any of your kin rear their children, I'm afraid your genes will be kicked out of the pool and you have failed your evolutionary task.
Don't feel bad tho, it's not a moral imperative at all. I was just explaining why the majority of people feel the way they do about kids, fertility and all.
If you feel you don't want to reproduce, more power to you. The world is overpopulated anyway.

Once again you're assigning human survival to just breeding. If he has a brother or sister the genes aren't hitting a dead end and he can help raise kin. Those who do not reproduce can still provide for the group. That's the beauty of being social animals.

 

[Big-E]

So if i have no drive or intention to have sex/children I have no purpose?
damn

Technically you don't but that is a very sad way to look at it given that in society, we have adapted to overcome our nature. If we start to think this way then we remove morality from the equation because there is no sense of morality in nature. If I meet a woman who I think is a good breeding partner and she already has a child, it is beneficiary for me, from a pure survival standpoint, to kill her child so she can devote more time to raising mine. This situation is obviously abhorrent because we don't no longer need to strive to multiply and do nothing else.

 

[Devolution]

Technically you don't but that is a very sad way to look at it given that in society, we have adapted to overcome our nature. If we start to think this way then we remove morality from the equation because there is no sense of morality in nature. If I meet a woman who I think is a good breeding partner and she already has a child, it is beneficiary for me, from a pure survival standpoint, to kill her child so she can devote more time to raising mine. This situation is obviously abhorrent because we don't no longer need to strive to multiply and do nothing else.

Once again I have to wonder what makes people think the only natural thing is to breed when many animals fuck in ways that are not for breeding purposes.

 

[Platy]

Here is a curious fact that i love :

Did you know that dolphins make sex (including gay sex) using the respiratory hole on their heads ?


How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

this is not 22,000BCE
a modern human in the developed world who is relatively skinny [compared to the venus] does not typically suffer from scarcity and thus weight need no longer be considered in a partners ability to bear children.

I'm far from the best person to say anything about reproduction insticts ... but i'm SURE that Angelina Jolie Oscar 2012's body should not be able to feed a children's needs .... even if the children is cannibal =P

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Did you know that dolphins make sex (including gay sex) using the respiratory hole on their heads ?


How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

The terrorists made them do it.

 

[scar tissue]

Once again I have to wonder what makes people think the only natural thing is to breed when many animals fuck in ways that are not for breeding purposes.

They don't fuck for fun INSTEAD of for breeding. They do it additionally.
Face it: breeding is the natural imperative. Anything else is to improve breeding success (such as fucking for mate-bonding or to resolve conflicts).
I have to wonder what's behind gay animals tho, it seems they (sometimes) adopt other babies - who could possibly be genetically related. For otherwise I don't see how they would stay in the gene pool.
When you play the game of life, you pass your genes on or you go extinct. There is no middle ground.

Again: this does not mean you should strive to breed. It does, however, explain the thought processes behind the actions of many people.

Here is a curious fact that i love :

Did you know that dolphins make sex (including gay sex) using the respiratory hole on their heads ?


How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

Easy: bonding or conflict resolution.
Any dolphin that had blowhole sex ONLY would never pass its genes on.

 

[Dead Man]

Here is a curious fact that i love :

Did you know that dolphins make sex (including gay sex) using the respiratory hole on their heads ?


How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

Wait... are you

DAMN IT CHEEZMO! I was going to make that joke.

 

[Uchip]

If you don't help any of your kin rear their children, I'm afraid your genes will be kicked out of the pool and you have failed your evolutionary task.
Don't feel bad tho, it's not a moral imperative at all. I was just explaining why the majority of people feel the way they do about kids, fertility and all.
If you feel you don't want to reproduce, more power to you. The world is overpopulated anyway.

There is a chance ill pass on athsma, depression and migraine to my child
so staying out of the gene pool is actually doing humanity a favour

my good looks will be wasted though obviously

How is THAT for purpose of reproduction ?

Actually, alleviating sexual desires through masturbation would be beneficial to individuals that are not ready to raise children (and to prevent overpopulation)

 

[scar tissue]

There is a chance ill pass on athsma, depression and migraine to my child
so staying out of the gene pool is actually doing humanity a favour

my good looks will be wasted though obviously

You are my personal hero.
Only very, very few people are selfless enough to say that they are "not fit" to pass on their genes. I hate selfish fucks like those blind guys who choose to get blind kids. ugh.
I'm on the edge about myself, but then again it seems I might not get the chance to reproduce, ever so I'll be spared the agony of having to decide.

 

[Instigator]

With you, certainly. I don't know how you can read something and still misunderstand it so badly. So yeah, I'm done with you, but I will watch with amusement.

None of your stuff was misunderstood. You tried your hardest to prove me wrong, directly or with side points, but you were rebutted on topic by me and other people. Repeatedly. People can still disagree in an Internet discussion. SHOCK!

So... it's been a rowdy couple of days on GAF, I think I have been a bit... agressive... in some of my posts, just wanted to swing by and apologise

You don't say!

They don't fuck for fun INSTEAD of for breeding. They do it additionally.
Face it: breeding is the natural imperative. Anything else is to improve breeding success (such as fucking for mate-bonding or to resolve conflicts).

Yes, it's amazing how that point escapes so many people.

BUBUBU I AM FUCKIN FOR FUN!!!

What do they think the average caveman was doing? Fucking in a cold, calculated way to get offsprings? No, he saw a pretty cavewoman, she thought he was a dashing hunter gatherer, they got closer and SCORE. Exciting 2 minutes for caveman! 9 months later, a baby is born. If cavewoman chose well, she keeps rewarding him (with sexual favors) so he sticks around for a while to help out with the baby. Otherwise, she'll know better next time.

The only dfference today is greater awareness about reproductivity and greater birth control. It may reduce unplanned pregnancies, but we're still fucking for the same reason.

 

[Dead Man]

None of your stuff was misunderstood. You tried your hardest to prove me wrong, directly or with side points, but you were rebutted on topic by me and other people. Repeatedly. People can still disagree in an Internet discussion. SHOCK!



You don't say!

My goodness, quoting posts from other threads out of context? You really have a crush on me, don't you? Look, I have tried being polite about it, and I am flattered, but you are getting creepy now and I don't want your attention. Have fun.

 

[Instigator]

See you in the next few posts.

 

[Pandaman]

I'm far from the best person to say anything about reproduction insticts ... but i'm SURE that Angelina Jolie Oscar 2012's body should not be able to feed a children's needs .... even if the children is cannibal =P

and yet she has 6 kids.

 

[Garbaga]

Pretty sure most males find Jolie's body right now extremely unappealing and even disgusting, so..

 

[Dead Man]

and yet she has 6 kids.

Aren't they adopted?

 

[Devolution]

Aren't they adopted?

3 are adopted, 3 are biological.

 

[Instigator]

Pretty sure most males find Jolie's body right now extremely unappealing and even disgusting, so..

Apart from the heavy makeup, she's still looks attractive.

She's also kinda crazy too and that's less attractive,

 

[Dead Man]

3 are adopted, 3 are biological.

The human body can work miracles then

 

[Garbaga]

Apart from the heavy makeup, she's still looks attractive.

She's also kinda crazy too and that's less attractive,

She's gorgeous but she needs to gain some weight.

 

[squidyj]

Once again you're assigning human survival to just breeding. If he has a brother or sister the genes aren't hitting a dead end and he can help raise kin. Those who do not reproduce can still provide for the group. That's the beauty of being social animals.

Not to mention I'm super attached to my genes and genetic propagation. My parents were really concerned about it when they adopted me too, I'm sure. Super concerned.

I remember when I used to have such reductive views as sex is for procreation therefore gay sex is lolwut. That lasted about a year until I turned 12. I'm embarassed to admit that I held onto the old chestnut "I like gays because it means there's less competition" for a little bit longer, makes me sad.

 

[Dead Man]

Not to mention I'm super attached to my genes and genetic propagation. My parents were really concerned about it when they adopted me too, I'm sure. Super concerned.

I remember when I used to have such reductive views as sex is for procreation therefore gay sex is lolwut. That lasted about a year until I turned 12. I'm embarassed to admit that I held onto the old chestnut "I like gays because it means there's less competition" for a little bit longer, makes me sad.

LOL, that's gold. Hold on to that, perfectly valid in my opinion!

 

[Instigator]

Not to mention I'm super attached to my genes and genetic propagation. My parents were really concerned about it when they adopted me too, I'm sure. Super concerned.

I remember when I used to have such reductive views as sex is for procreation therefore gay sex is lolwut. That lasted about a year until I turned 12. I'm embarassed to admit that I held onto the old chestnut "I like gays because it means there's less competition" for a little bit longer, makes me sad.

You were thinking a lot about gay sex at 11?

 

[squidyj]

You were thinking a lot about gay sex at 11?

Hmmmm, that might be a little low. maybe +1 or 2 years, definitely before I was 14. It was a while ago. It happened after my teacher took my hockey pucks and lost them and before I really got into counterstrike. This is all, however, really irrelevant information and I probably should have just used the phrase 'when I was a kid'.

 

[Platy]

The human body can work miracles then

She was MUCH less "omfg eat an hambuger please" when she had her biological kids

 

[Gaborn]

You were thinking a lot about gay sex at 11?

I realize you're unable to answer but that shouldn't be that surprising. I mean, I was probably thinking about gay sex at that age. Maybe in more abstract terms (such as what it would be like to kiss another boy, or the mechanics of it) but 11 is still borderline of puberty so it's an entirely likely train of thought.