(Untitled)

[sjet]

I got my chocolate. Woo. But fuck you europeans. Fuck you and your stupid openin of my package. I don't know if I can eat it now, it might have mad cow disease.

On another note, I was thinking and was wondering why gay men's semen is still viable. They're gay, why would it still work?

Comments

[chocoboco]

...I don't know. That's a really good question. However, even though I'm gay, I do intend to make at least one baby-creature at some point during my life. I guess it's still viable so options like that are available to d00ds like me?

Kinda interesting to think about, though. :x

[chocoboco]

P.S. Give me some of your chocolate, bitch. >O

[sjet]

It's from switzerland =)

[chocoboco]

Well, derrrrrrrrr. That's why I asked for some. :D

One possible explaination

[indy84]

Back in the days of freshman year of college, where I looked to things like biological determinism as one possible explaination for gayness (think gay gene), I repeatedly came across the retort to that famous question of gays: what evolutionary purpose do they serve (lacking perhaps reproductive probability through not possiblity), well the answer was that in the non-labeled pre-civilization era as group dynamics were emerging, groups having gay members may have done fared better than those without them. That is, the random gay mutation (here used strictly in evolutionary terms, not saying that gays are mutants) was useful at the level of survival of the fittest...group. That said, I believe that one of the reasons gay men have viable sperm, is that the biological imperative to reproduce, to survive and to pass on one's gentic material (sperm or egg) trumps gayness because they are not mutually exclusive. An attraction to same-sex partners does not exclude the possibility of reproduction; if the group hypothesis is correct (i'm not

[hotarunokokoro]

how about this... they are still men, even thoguh they are gay.
men have sperm... hmm... so maybe its cos they're still men???
nah...... too simple!
^_~

[sjet]

BUt they don't have the biological imperative to continue the species, because they want a member of the same sex. Wouldn't that imply that it's worthless to have, and therefore redundant?

[evilninjastan]

Something in your cause and effect here is wrong. I don't see why gay guys (or girls, really, and I am que offended by your sexistness) couldn't have a biological imperative to continue the species despite their gayness. Whatever.

[indy84]

As I sort of said last time, heterosexuality and homosexuality are social constructs based on biological sexual desires. That homosexuals should have non-viable sperm presupposes that there is such a thing as a homosexual as a real being in the real world. There is not. Many people believe that the binary oppositional framework homosexual/heterosexual is to a great extent a false one, and that sexuality is a probabilistic spectrum of desire rather than an either/or position. That is, my attraction to men accounts for much (but not all, of my sexual attraction). You on the other hand are no doubt greatly attracted to women; in much the same way, this accounts for much, but not all of your sexual attraction. Seen in this way, this sort of biological sterialization that you bring up can't happen because for two reasons. One, that even gay men may need their sperm to reproduce upon having found the statistically unlikely but no doubt possible women that attract them (the same for egg-bearing lesbians). And second, that there are

[sjet]

lol, did I get you thinking about it? 2 replys!

Yeah

[indy84]

I wrote one of my major papers freshman year in English on gay-related topics. Sorry...

Re: Yeah

[sjet]

doesn't bother me at all, It was just one of those random thoughts.