Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

General: Dragon Age Sex Controversy Examined

1131416181922

Comments

  • lisubablisubab Member Posts: 670
    Originally posted by banthis


    Health Insurance Isn't in debt...last time i looked those Banks were pretty much about to sink and take a ton of innocent people with them.  Thats a pretty big difference.   The health care industry is frigging Mad Rich....Banks/ They made stupid risky investments in giving people loans that they can not realistically afford.  Not to mention playing on the stock market which was just dumb in the first place with how lopsided its been since 9/11
    Not sure I can comment on the car industry..maybe if we made Better Cars for the money people wouldn't buy fancy forgien cars. 
    BTW if the government as so much even thinks about Bailing out the Insurance industry instead of improving health care...I'll hitch up my stuff and Move.  Damn tired of greedy ass companies that make bad mistakes getting pay outs. 

     

    Hate to further derail the thread, and I find it imperative to comment on the last sentence.

    Me and all but 1 friend from post-grad days, have left countries, me for decades.  Not that moon is fuller on the other side, but that I can face it honestly and tell myself, "this stinks" in face of whoever I hate.

    I hate the hypocracy at home.  We go to church every weekend, and the priest is sleeping with the 10 year old kids.  Some of us know it and still talks through him to god.  Same for our "industry regulations".  The greedy and the biggest gang up to rape the small companies and they help formulate business regulation policies they themselves hire tons of lawyers to find legal loopholes to get around.

    If I am going to be a business man, I straight up tell my clients, this is my cut b/c I need to pay for my rental and my off hour MMO sub.  Pay or get lost.  I do not pretend I did my part, squander 90% of my company's fortune and blackmail the admin for billions of dollars of rescue funds simply b/c I screwed up big time and threaten to rock the economy.  In the places I now travel, if I screw up my business, I will be begging on the streets.

  • WraithoneWraithone Member RarePosts: 3,803
    Originally posted by arnen


    People are offended by gay sex because it is a distortion of what sex was made for. Whether you believe in evolution, christianity or whatever it doesn't matter. Neither lesbians or gays can seem to put it in the right hole and for good reason... it's not supposed to. If you are gay, congratulations. But just because people are gay doesn't mean the world needs to cater to gays in every aspect of life. Gays are a MINORITY and the majority of the population is disgusted by it and rightfully so.

     

    Yes they are a minority, and as we've come to understand from a LONG tradition of human history might(numbers) makes "right"... It doesn't matter how disgusted you or I might find such, its not our choice in the first place.  Unless of course one falls back on might(numbers) makes "right"... But that has its own implications, especially in terms of asymmetrical conflict.

    "If you can't kill it, don't make it mad."
  • ThillianThillian Member UncommonPosts: 3,156
    Originally posted by arnen


    People are offended by gay sex because it is a distortion of what sex was made for. Whether you believe in evolution, christianity or whatever it doesn't matter. Neither lesbians or gays can seem to put it in the right hole and for good reason... 



     

    Sex for pleasure is not a domain of human race or gays. If you are so sure what the sex was made for, you should stop masturbating and having distortive and vile sex with your girlfriend if you're not trying to have a baby.

    REALITY CHECK

  • kittyvonkitakittyvonkita Member Posts: 75

    On the children issue, If you're worried about your kid picking up things from games, perhaps you need to sit down with your child and talk about these things.  Limit game time. Be a parent. Don't try to make companies do the thinking for you and be resposible and read the packages. Personally, I think this game pushes the envelope just far enough.

     

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,501

    DM: “That aside, the game rewards people who do the right think”

    The right thing or the right think? A subconious slip in an article where Dana Massey finds it very important that you think like he does.

    He tells us how the game promotes a sleep with everyone mentaltity but that’s alright as everyone keeps their underwear on. An odd moral philosophy to play by, one where what you can see is more important than what you choose to do. The fact that the game does not change the positions for gay sex seems more important to him than the dubious ‘if it moves sleep with it’ menality.

    The organisation mentioned, ‘WorldNewsDaily’ is accused of homophobia by Mr Massey because it just zeros in on the gay sex angle. Here are some quotes from that article:

    WND: "decide how to handle complex issues like murder, genocide, betrayal and the possession and sacrificing of children."

    WND: “The child is slain, and a female demon with horns and a tail emerges from his corpse.”

    I think it was fair to say that WND ran with a inflammatory headline but that they were concerned about more than just gay sex. Also if the You Tube quotes at the bottom of the article are true, the game is being lauded as a landmark achievement for the gay community. In the light of that I think an examination of the sexual orientation of the game is quite fair, though the article is clearly sensationalist.

    One can only wonder why Mr Massey picked this news item out of so many which had escaped all our radars to write an article about. No political bias there surely?

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by Dana

    Originally posted by battleaxe

    Originally posted by dhayes68

    Originally posted by battleaxe


    Homosexuality, multiple-partner sex, bestiality, and adultery are all forms of sexual deviance that are morally wrong in almost every culture.  Protesting against blatant sexual deviance is not homophobia.
    However protesting against sexual deviance in a game where the object is to run around killing people is a bit absurd.

     

    First of all to claim deviance you have to accept that there is a norm that is being deviated from. And you just can't do that. People all over the world throughout all times have done different things to get off. The idea that a sexual behavior is deviant is false.

    Those things are not morally wrong in every culture. I understand that since you think those things are deviant, you also think that 'right-thinking' people all over the world agree with you, but its just not the case.

    Now lets assume for the sake of argument that there is a sexual norm, and the things you listed do indeed deviate from that norm. That still doesn't mean those things are wrong, or morally wrong. Different doesn't mean wrong. Also you can't show any harm, so protesting against gay people IS homophobia.

     

    The permissiveness of the US secular culture does not extend to the rest of the world.  These acts ARE morally wrong in almost every culture.  In some cultures, it even goes so far as to be punished by the death penalty for those who get caught in such situations.  If you disagree, go to Saudi Arabia and practice homosexuality publicly. 

    Despite your wishing otherwise, morally wrong is morally wrong.  Those with moral standards have the right to protest against that which they find immoral.  Protesting against public display of sexual deviance is not homophobia, it's an attempt to bring moral values to their community and dissuade those practicing deviant behavior from committing immoral acts.  The harm is to both those witnessing the acts and those committing them.  If you were to stop someone who was about to cut off their hand, would you be handectomyphobic?  No, you'd be expressing concern for that person's well-being.

     

    That's not even remotely true.

    Romans, Greeks and all sorts of other cultures throughout history were completely OK with homosexuality. Historically speaking, in Western culture at least, this moral outcry is a relatively (IE: in the hundreds of years) new development.

    Sure, there are cultures where you cannot openly be gay, but there are also cultures where you cannot eat certain animals on certain days of the week. Every culture has its quirks.

    But to paint that with such a complete brush is absolutely absurd from a historical point of view.

    The fact is, modern science should tell people thinking homosexuality is a choice or immoral is ridiculous. Biologically speaking, 10% of ducks are gay. Get over it.

    From historical point of view the norm has been that homosexuality is a mortal sin. It is hinted in the Old Testament which is thousands of years old and God even destroyed a whole city which engaged in deviant sexual behaviour (including homesexuality). So those cultures where it has been accepted has been the exception rather than the norm and those cultures no longer exist.

    From an evolutional perspective it is a death sentance for a heterosexual species to be homosexual for obvious reasons so not only is it immoral, in many cultures, but it is also evolutionary wrong.

    That being said I dont think it is "evil" or anything but rather a deficiency that some people give way too much attention to (on both sides).

    I personally dont care if people engage into homosexual acts aslong as it is private and not in my face. Something that I think alot of people labeled "homophobes" are like and I very much would like to know if a media has homosexual sex in it so I can avoid playing those. And no, a label saying "contains sexual content" is not enough. Rather it should say contains deviant sexual content because that is what homosexuality is: deviant, i.e. differs from the norm which is heterosexuality. Because as you stated only roughly 10% are homosexual.

     

  • ThenariusThenarius Member Posts: 1,106
    Originally posted by Zorndorf


    MMORPG ... MMORPG ... MMORPG.com
    So Dragon Age is an mmorpg these days ?
    Nope, so why the article?
    Because it is provocotive and sells the website.
    btw ... games with extensive elements of sex in them usually means bad game play.
    It is like promoting a topless restaurant: great tits but terrible food.
     

    Agree with the first one, why don't you guys start reviewing future games like Mass Effect 2, AVP3, Stalker, Bioshock 2, etc and let's call it Games.com?

    Also, Zorn, the irony is that you don't even get to see the tits in Dragon Age. The game barely has any actual sex scenes in it, just some kissing and hugging, that's all. But it isn't a bad game.

  • WraithoneWraithone Member RarePosts: 3,803
    Originally posted by Scot


    DM: “That aside, the game rewards people who do the right think”
    The right thing or the right think? A subconious slip in an article where Dana Massey finds it very important that you think like he does.
    He tells us how the game promotes a sleep with everyone mentaltity but that’s alright as everyone keeps their underwear on. An odd moral philosophy to play by, one where what you can see is more important than what you choose to do. The fact that the game does not change the positions for gay sex seems more important to him than the dubious ‘if it moves sleep with it’ menality.
    The organisation mentioned, ‘WorldNewsDaily’ is accused of homophobia by Mr Massey because it just zeros in on the gay sex angle. Here are some quotes from that article:
    WND: "decide how to handle complex issues like murder, genocide, betrayal and the possession and sacrificing of children."
    WND: “The child is slain, and a female demon with horns and a tail emerges from his corpse.”
    I think it was fair to say that WND ran with a inflammatory headline but that they were concerned about more than just gay sex. Also if the You Tube quotes at the bottom of the article are true, the game is being lauded as a landmark achievement for the gay community. In the light of that I think an examination of the sexual orientation of the game is quite fair, though the article is clearly sensationalist.
    One can only wonder why Mr Massey picked this news item out of so many which had escaped all our radars to write an article about. No political bias there surely?

     

    Scot, *everyone* has their own bias and agenda, including you and I.  World "News" Daliy is simply a further "right" version of the type of mentality that Fox "News" panders to.  Neo Cons and/or Fundies eat that type of nonsense up. Just as Neo Libs do the swill pushed by the Clinton "News" Network.  Both push the same type of thoughtless knee jerk reaction to complex issues, that has resulted in our current sorry state of affairs. Until people realize the extent to which they are being manipulated, little if any change for the better will take place.

    Your last is ironic when applied to your choice to respond to this particular column...

    "If you can't kill it, don't make it mad."
  • ThillianThillian Member UncommonPosts: 3,156
    Originally posted by Yamota


    From an evolutional perspective it is a death sentance for a heterosexual species to be homosexual for obvious reasons so not only is it immoral, in many cultures, but it is also evolutionary wrong.
    That being said I dont think it is "evil" or anything but rather a deficiency that some people give way too much attention to (on both sides).
    I personally dont care if people engage into homosexual acts aslong as it is private and not in my face. Something that I think alot of people labeled "homophobes" are like and I very much would like to know if a media has homosexual sex in it so I can avoid playing those. And no, a label saying "contains sexual content" is not enough. Rather it should say contains deviant sexual content because that is what homosexuality is: deviant, i.e. differs from the norm which is heterosexuality. Because as you stated only roughly 10% are homosexual.
     



     

    In the end, there's no difference between a nature and norture. From an evolutionary point of view, homosexual genes should be a definite and immediate dead end. I'm afraid the whole thing is far more complicated. Other forms of genetic deviations are appearing in roughly 1:10000 cases. If homosexuality is 1:10, it hardly can be called a genetic damage or faulty mutation. Remember - Survival of the fittest ? That would sort that out instantly.

     

    REALITY CHECK

  • egerardoegerardo Member Posts: 12

    Som much fuzz because of a computer game, only on the Sates

  • GrömGröm Member Posts: 303

    I sincerly just laugh out loud at this whole idiosyncrasy.





    Edit: and yes, unfortunately, only in certain few Western countries...

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,809
    Originally posted by Yamota


    I personally dont care if people engage into homosexual acts aslong as it is private and not in my face. Something that I think alot of people labeled "homophobes" are like and I very much would like to know if a media has homosexual sex in it so I can avoid playing those. And no, a label saying "contains sexual content" is not enough. Rather it should say contains deviant sexual content because that is what homosexuality is: deviant, i.e. differs from the norm which is heterosexuality. Because as you stated only roughly 10% are homosexual.
     



     

    So movies, albums, books should also implement a "contains deviant sexual content" label? What about a "contains individuals taking drugs" label? Or "contains characters who use profane words" label? "Contains passages with extreme religious content"?

    or maybe it can have a mature rating and people can just read about the content and judge for themselves?

    I mean, people keep saying how they dont' want "hand holding" in video games. It would seem to be a bit hypocritical to say they don't like dumbing things down or hand holding but then need every little bit of anything that might possibly be offensive spelled out.

    Sort of reminds me of the Southpark where the town decided to remove anything that might be considered remotely offensive from the Christmas pagent only to turn it into some sort of weird experimental dance piece with the music of philip glass.

    I agree that some material should not be shoved in others' faces. But I also strongly believe that we can be adults, suck it up and do our own research as well.

    I thorougly believe that any reasonable adult should be able to handle this.




  • GTwanderGTwander Member UncommonPosts: 6,035

    I know I'm throwing an opinion into a sea of "who gives a crap"... but really, the gay/lesbian thing arose from political correctness in the first place. It's always hetero relationships shown in games, homos got offended, Bioware throws them a bone, now it's an easy target to stab at. All from trying to be *more* PC over sex.

    Then the question of "who is being politically incorrect in today's climate?"

    The gays or Fox News (lol)?

    Writer / Musician / Game Designer

    Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
    Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture

  • AldosACAldosAC Member CommonPosts: 12

    I just want to see some naked Elves.  Is that too much to ask?

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by Thillian

    Originally posted by Yamota


    From an evolutional perspective it is a death sentance for a heterosexual species to be homosexual for obvious reasons so not only is it immoral, in many cultures, but it is also evolutionary wrong.
    That being said I dont think it is "evil" or anything but rather a deficiency that some people give way too much attention to (on both sides).
    I personally dont care if people engage into homosexual acts aslong as it is private and not in my face. Something that I think alot of people labeled "homophobes" are like and I very much would like to know if a media has homosexual sex in it so I can avoid playing those. And no, a label saying "contains sexual content" is not enough. Rather it should say contains deviant sexual content because that is what homosexuality is: deviant, i.e. differs from the norm which is heterosexuality. Because as you stated only roughly 10% are homosexual.
     



     

    In the end, there's no difference between a nature and norture. From an evolutionary point of view, homosexual genes should be a definite and immediate dead end. I'm afraid the whole thing is far more complicated. Other forms of genetic deviations are appearing in roughly 1:10000 cases. If homosexuality is 1:10, it hardly can be called a genetic damage or faulty mutation. Remember - Survival of the fittest ? That would sort that out instantly. 

    We have tons of genetical diseases that are not "sorted out" and the reason is that Darwins theory of evolution is not complete, it has many missing puzzle pieces and genetical diseases is one of them (the missing link is one other).

    For instance, roughly 90% of people in asian countries are missing the gene to properly digest milk. Also it is estimated that 30% of people are genetically disposed to various cancer forms, diabetes, psychological illnessed and so on. So humans are not as perfect as one would deduce from the "survival of the fittest" theory. And certainly not so with the invent of civilization where "weaker" speciments are taken care of, rather than killed of. There are even several religions who says it is your DUTY to take care of people who are in need (including those that are sick or incapable of taking care of themselves).

    So too summarise humans have ALOT of genetical "defects" that does not seem to be anything but a disadvantage. Yet they are passed from generations to generations. And the reason is simple, evolution has not finished but is still an ongoing process. A process that is now affected by civilization and maybe one can say that civilization is an evolutional product, who knows? Point is that evolution is a MUCH more complex theory beside just "survival of the fittest". Atleast on humans who has religion, culture, medical care and what not.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Originally posted by Yamota


    I personally dont care if people engage into homosexual acts aslong as it is private and not in my face. Something that I think alot of people labeled "homophobes" are like and I very much would like to know if a media has homosexual sex in it so I can avoid playing those. And no, a label saying "contains sexual content" is not enough. Rather it should say contains deviant sexual content because that is what homosexuality is: deviant, i.e. differs from the norm which is heterosexuality. Because as you stated only roughly 10% are homosexual.
     



     

    So movies, albums, books should also implement a "contains deviant sexual content" label? What about a "contains individuals taking drugs" label? Or "contains characters who use profane words" label? "Contains passages with extreme religious content"?

    or maybe it can have a mature rating and people can just read about the content and judge for themselves?

    I mean, people keep saying how they dont' want "hand holding" in video games. It would seem to be a bit hypocritical to say they don't like dumbing things down or hand holding but then need every little bit of anything that might possibly be offensive spelled out.

    Sort of reminds me of the Southpark where the town decided to remove anything that might be considered remotely offensive from the Christmas pagent only to turn it into some sort of weird experimental dance piece with the music of philip glass.

    I agree that some material should not be shoved in others' faces. But I also strongly believe that we can be adults, suck it up and do our own research as well.

    I thorougly believe that any reasonable adult should be able to handle this.

    Its a HUGE difference between warning people that such content exist instead of removing it. I am sure you are aware of this but you seem to want to make people think Im a bigot by equating the two.

    Nice try but gl next time. I said WARN not remove. I for example am against homosexual behaviour since it both goes against my religion and against laws of nature so I have the right to avoid such content and not support companies that produces media abou it. And I have every right to do so, and so has anyone else in a free society. Because that is the flipside of freedom. you have the freedom to avoid content you dont like as well as expressing the ones you do like.

    Things like kiddie porn and bestiality is something that is obvious that you dont need to be subjected to (even though the latter is legal in many countries) yet for gay sex I have to be subject to it without given due warning. Why?

  • ThillianThillian Member UncommonPosts: 3,156
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Originally posted by Thillian




     
    In the end, there's no difference between a nature and norture. From an evolutionary point of view, homosexual genes should be a definite and immediate dead end. I'm afraid the whole thing is far more complicated. Other forms of genetic deviations are appearing in roughly 1:10000 cases. If homosexuality is 1:10, it hardly can be called a genetic damage or faulty mutation. Remember - Survival of the fittest ? That would sort that out instantly. 

    We have tons of genetical diseases that are not "sorted out" and the reason is that Darwins theory of evolution is not complete, it has many missing puzzle pieces and genetical diseases is one of them (the missing link is one other).

    For instance, roughly 90% of people in asian countries are missing the gene to properly digest milk. Also it is estimated that 30% of people are genetically disposed to various cancer forms, diabetes, psychological illnessed and so on. So humans are not as perfect as one would deduce from the "survival of the fittest" theory. And certainly not so with the invent of civilization where "weaker" speciments are taken care of, rather than killed of. There are even several religions who says it is your DUTY to take care of people who are in need (including those that are sick or incapable of taking care of themselves).

    So too summarise humans have ALOT of genetical "defects" that does not seem to be anything but a disadvantage. Yet they are passed from generations to generations. And the reason is simple, evolution has not finished but is still an ongoing process. A process that is now affected by civilization and maybe one can say that civilization is an evolutional product, who knows? Point is that evolution is a MUCH more complex theory beside just "survival of the fittest".

    There is a huge difference between a digest milk gene error, and homosexual gene. Homosexual genes are dead end - Non-reproducible. They do not have babies, the gene-line mutation should be in extremly small ratio such as 1:10000 which is a level of other gene non-reproducible defects. Digest milk is a minor flaw and the gene can reproduce itself and further mutate.

     

    REALITY CHECK

  • ThillianThillian Member UncommonPosts: 3,156
    Originally posted by Yamota


    laws of nature



     

    Nothing is against laws of nature. Sex and love does not have the sole purpose of reproduction.

    REALITY CHECK

  • Mariner-80Mariner-80 Member Posts: 347

    I am not going to wade through pages and pages of discussion. The game is rated "M" for a reason. 'Nuff said.

    For my own money, however, I turned off the "persistent gore" in the DA:O options early on, not because I was offended by the blood but just because I didn't want it. If there had been an option to disable any and all "romance/sex" options of any kind, gay or otherwise, I would have turned that off, too, just because the "sex" has a trivial sideshow aspect to it and adds nothing worthwhile to the game itself (imo).

    It is unfortunate that Bioware, simply as a courtesy to the players, didn't add an option like that (as they did with the persistent gore). It would have been a fairly simple thing to do. All it would have entailed is the removal of a few critical dialog options.

    Oh well. The game is still very wonderful and entertaining, for all that.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by Thillian



    There is a huge difference between a digest milk gene error, and homosexual gene. Homosexual genes are dead end - Non-reproducible. They do not have babies, the gene-line mutation should be in extremly small ratio such as 1:10000 which is a level of other gene non-reproducible defects. Digest milk is a minor flaw and the gene can reproduce itself and further mutate.

     

    Wow you focused on ONE thing I said and completely ignored the rest.

    Tell me is fatal cancer a dead end? Can a dead person reproduce? And if he/she reproduces before she dies what happens then? Yes the child may get that same gene.

    Excactly the same with homosexuality. Because a homosexual person can reproduce because they can have sex with the opposite sex but they choose not to do so because they are not attracted to them. But attraction is not a requirement for sexual reproduction. I know alot of people that has slept with others even though they were not attracted to them. And there have been many cases where homosexual people have had "normal" relationships on the side of their sexual relationsships, have kids and everything. So NO, it is not a dead end because it does not prevent you from reproduce, but rather inhibits you from reproduyce.

  • YamotaYamota Member UncommonPosts: 6,593
    Originally posted by Thillian

    Originally posted by Yamota


    laws of nature



     

    Nothing is against laws of nature. Sex and love does not have the sole purpose of reproduction.

    It is against evolutionar aspect of nature. There are no benefits from a evelotionary perspective for a heterosexual species to be homosexual. Atleast no proven ones. Hence it is a disease (no pun intented).

    But it is not neccessarily a mortal disease, neither are alot of other genetical diseases. Such as bi-polarity, diabetes and so on.

    And love does not neccessarily include sex. It is very possible to love someone but not sleep with him/her. Homo/Hetero sexuality though is only about what sex you are attracted to. I can love women and men alike but I am only attracted to females (which I dont neccessarily need to love), hence I am heterosexual.

  • UmbralUmbral Member Posts: 1,051
    Originally posted by Yamota


     
    From an evolutional perspective it is a death sentance for a heterosexual species to be homosexual for obvious reasons so not only is it immoral, in many cultures, but it is also evolutionary wrong.



     

    This is what happens when random pseudo scientifc arguments are used.

    See, your argument is limited and wrong.

    One of the bigger issues among human race and evolution is superpopulation and lack of food.

    A healthy society need that a percentage of the population to be sterile somehow. It doesn't matters if part of the species are homosexual, recluse, celibate or just don't want to have kids. Especially today as we live in a superpopulated world.

    See, a society where everyone procreate is as bad as a society where no one procreate.

    So, from an evolutional perspective we need a porcentage of homossexuals.

    Yamota your arguments related to evolution, history, art and entertainment are offensively wrong, please keep your arguments limited to what you have knowledge.

     

    ...

  • ThillianThillian Member UncommonPosts: 3,156
    Originally posted by Yamota

    Originally posted by Thillian



    There is a huge difference between a digest milk gene error, and homosexual gene. Homosexual genes are dead end - Non-reproducible. They do not have babies, the gene-line mutation should be in extremly small ratio such as 1:10000 which is a level of other gene non-reproducible defects. Digest milk is a minor flaw and the gene can reproduce itself and further mutate.

     

    Wow you focused on ONE thing I said and completely ignored the rest.

    Tell me is fatal cancer a dead end? Can a dead person reproduce? And if he/she reproduces before she dies what happens then? Yes the child may get that same gene.

    Excactly the same with homosexuality. Because a homosexual person can reproduce because they can have sex with the opposite sex but they choose not to do so because they are not attracted to them. But attraction is not a requirement for sexual reproduction. I know alot of people that has slept with others even though they were not attracted to them. And there have been many cases where homosexual people have had "normal" relationships on the side of their sexual relationsships, have kids and everything. So NO, it is not a dead end.

    "Recent studies (1,2) have found that female relatives of male homosexuals do indeed produce more children (and the same is true of bisexual men)."

     

    1. Camperio-Ciani, A., et al. (2004). Evidence for maternally-inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proceedoings of the Royal Society of London, B 271, 2217-2224.

    2. Camperio Ciani, A. (2009). Genetic factors increase fecundity in female maternal relatives of Bisexual men as in homosexuals. Sexual Medicine, 6, 449-455.

    Quote from the survey: 

    "Mothers of gay men produced an average of 2.7 babies compared with 2.3 born to mothers of straight men. And maternal aunts of gay men had 2.0 babies compared with 1.5 born to the maternal aunts of straight men."

    You can say it's against nature, I say nothing is against nature. Nature itself is the engine of all things around us in a world of physical and chemical causality

    REALITY CHECK

  • UmbralUmbral Member Posts: 1,051
    Originally posted by Thillian



     
    You can say it's against nature, I say nothing is against nature. Nature itself is the engine of all things around us in a world of physical and chemical causality



     

    Exactly.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.