First off, I would like to say, I hope you didn't think I was attacking your post. On the contrary ^^ It was a very interesting read, and I felt I wanted to respond to it and partake in your thoughts.
Oh right, those 'sex addicts' indeed, I even forgot about those. Not really a thing I tend to remember for some reason
And yes, that was the word I was looking for: visible.
As for the equal part: I agree, few things are indeed equal.
However, there is another point to it. As you pointed out, it could be equal, but it could also not be equal. We indeed don't know. As for a counter-argument (for the sake of discussing
), take men and women as example. There are many factors that are equal (let's take some basic example: both have arms and legs and a head on top of a torso), and also many factors that are unequal (staying with the example pf physical aspects: sexual organs). The same goes for psychology: Some things are quite similar, others are dissimilar. We can't seem to put a line what exactly is different, and at the same time we can. It's like a constant 'paradox', as it were.With me indicating the apostrophes around the word blame ('blame'), I was hoping it would be read as such. I didn't mean you were blaming women in particular, not at all! (If that is how you happened to read it, I'm sorry. If I misinterpreted, apologies for that ^^; )
But even silly small things have been said that it was due to women, whether meaning to actually blame women or not. (Oh gosh, I don't mean to sound like a feminist/feminazi here ._.) And a lot of later research has proven it simply isn't (nor ever was) the case. And because research sometimes is so slow, the information comes out very slow as well. Blargh. Words.
I think that is a very good assumption. The same goes for example: Women with a... fuller chest are seen as sexier (in general), it shows somehow to potential partners/mates that they are (in general) more fertile, and thus more likely to have children. Etc., etc.Ryall wrote:That second point just answers the question, "if there are a set of gay genes, why haven't they died out?" The reason is that even though men with those genes are less likely to have children, women with those genes are more likely to have children, and so it evens out and the gene continues.
I think we get the point? x3
Basically, genes to increase libido would totally make sense, especially in gay people as well. Even though it might not make sense to some at first.
