from the they-should-be-as-unhappy-as-the-rest-of-us dept.
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Despite the many challenges faced by people in a same-sex relationship, a study made by two students of the University of Queensland concluded that this kind of relationship is happier compared to the normal relationship we know as male to female bond.
Researchers Francisco Perales and Janeen Baxter said that the conclusion of their study is a strong counter-narrative to the usual thinking that same-sex relationships are conflictual, unhappy, and dysfunctional.
The conclusion of the study, which was published in the academic journal Family Relations, was derived after the researchers surveyed 25,000 people in the United Kingdom and 9,000 others in Australia.
Also at Francisco Perales, Janeen Baxter. Sexual Identity and Relationship Quality in Australia and the United Kingdom. Family Relations, 2017; DOI: 10.1111/fare.12293
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:36PM
Well, we'll fix that, won't we.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:46PM
I ragged on you whole lot, but you are manning the station when, I assume, everyone is off for the holidays. Thumb up. Credit where it's due, and happy holidays to you and your family.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:52PM (11 children)
In same sex relationships, it is likelier (though not a given) that there are no children and both partners are working. That means more money and, therefore, fewer fights over money.
Financial issues are one of the greatest causes of marital friction. Lessen those and you will have happier marriages.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:43PM (2 children)
Excellent insight and I think this is likely one of the reasons. I've been down that road myself: financial issues are indeed relationship-killers. For that reason, I think it's best if no one has any children, because they're a financial drain and a huge risk. Instead, the society depicted in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" should be emulated to some extent, with monogamous relationships eliminated, and children artificially grown and then raised by the government.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:15PM (1 child)
Because government has demonstrated over and over again that it can be trusted with the indoctrination of the next generation of sheeple, amirite?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:35PM
Because government has demonstrated over and over again that it can be trusted with the indoctrination of the next generation of sheeple, amirite?
Depends on the government. The US government seems to be pretty incompetent these days, but some other governments are not. The Norwegian government would probably do a fine job of raising the next generation, and the Japanese government would probably do ok too.
Besides, I fail to see how any industrialized nation's government could do a worse job than today's typical parents, most of whom are either religious wackos or poverty-stricken.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:50PM (1 child)
Plus, no homosexual marriage has been a shotgun wedding, so they're less likely to be in a committed relationship for the wrong reason.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:55PM
Maybe not yet (despite alternate interpretations [theguardian.com]), but I'm sure it would make for a great film script.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:38PM
With straight marriages there have also been a historical expectation. Whether to get married in spite of affection for the person, or to rush said marriage and get to having kids so your parents could have grandchildren. Take either or both of those out of the equation and there is a lot more room for happiness without as much relationship conflict.
Another difference is sexual expectations. Since homosexual relationships have been predominantly taboo, including marriage, there was less of a burden to talk about your sexual interests before tying the knot, which probably helped with the whole 'open communication' thing and ensuring you were both on the same page as far as what you were expecting, whether an 'open relationship' with partners outside of the marriage, or sexual interests your partner may or may not like. This is often overlooked in regards to straight relationships as well, many partners turning out to be asexual, vanilla, religiously constrained in their sexual activities, etc.
All of these can cause the sorts of maritial issues which would cause heterosexual couples to seem less happy than homosexual couples, while ignoring the fact that the same issues are likely to occur in homosexual couples in the future if society doesn't work on making open communication between partners more of a cultural feature. Being able to trust your partner is important, as is your complete relationship chemistry (or at least the openness to allow them to explore interests you don't have without you.) If your chemistry is wrong you are better off waiting to find someone else than entering into a half assed marriage which will cause the unhappiness noted above.
The financial aspect is just the topping on the cake.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Wednesday December 27 2017, @12:49AM (4 children)
Just to add to you excellent comment, it used to be that one - man's - income was enough for a family of four. The income, which did not change much, is still counted for this model family while it takes two to earn the money. That's the whole explanation to why modern families are more miserable.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pdfernhout on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:54AM (3 children)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2004/11/two-income-trap/ [motherjones.com]
"Middle-class parents are stretched thin these days. Between health care costs, child care hassles, looking for a home in a good district, and paying for college, raising a child is becoming increasingly expensive. Little wonder, then, that married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts, and 75 percent more likely to have their homes foreclosed. And the danger is growing worse by the year: In 2002 1.6 million people filed for bankruptcy, many of those middle-class parents. a record . As Elizabeth Warren and Amelia Tyagi note in their book, The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke, having a child is now “the single best predictor” of bankruptcy. “"
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:51PM (2 children)
My Chinese friend told me a story the other day. Suppose one accepts an IT employment at a Chinese corporation. The first talk with HR looks like this. "Does your wife work? Yes. How much does she make? ... We are offering you half her income salary increase if she quits immediately".
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:45AM (1 child)
So, they want the wife to be miserable without much social interaction?? For many people, this is what work provides - ability to talk to people outside your family. And in stressful times, this can be a much needed relief.
Yeah, even part time work is enough, but no work makes you feel like crap.
(Score: 1) by pdfernhout on Friday December 29 2017, @01:52AM
Unpaid "work" like volunteering, raising children, political involvement, and local subsistence production can all take about as much effort as you can put into them -- and also put you in touch with many people in your community and beyond.
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MostCynical on Tuesday December 26 2017, @09:53PM
if your relationship takes effort, just to appear in public, dealing with discriminatory sh!t from homophobes just for being yourself, it makes sense that you are, effectively, not taking your relationship or your partner for granted.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 4, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:07PM (19 children)
I didn't know that was the usual thinking...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 5, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:45PM (5 children)
Depends on who you ask. If you ask the conservative and religious types, they'll usually repeat this claim, because they're desperate to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" and thus they need to convince people that only monogamous, religious-based marriages can possibly make people happy.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:59PM
Most of the time I never hear about personal happiness from those types, I hear about "right" and "wrong," "right" often being the more difficult option of the two.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:52PM
It says usual thinking. What you're talking about it doesn't involve any thinking.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by schad on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:13AM (2 children)
I've asked. Religious types say things like "It's a sin" or "It's against God's plan" or "The Bible says that it's an outward sign of inner corruption" or whatever else. Conservatives usually talk about "traditional Judeo-Christian values," which is the same thing. But they'll also talk about "normalcy," which isn't quite the same thing; in that case, it's more about conforming to the prevailing social norms, which they view as essential for a healthy society.
The closest I can get is to say that religious people tend to think that true happiness is impossible for nonbelievers. So a married gay couple would be unhappy, though of course so would a single gay person. They key trait is not having found (the "correct") God.
Maybe the religious and conservative people I talk to are smarter than the ones you and the researchers talk to. I was inclined to believe that the researchers just lived in the fairly typical academic echo chamber where they are almost literally incapable of comprehending foreign perspectives. But if you've got some actual first-hand experience... maybe I'm just hanging out with the right sorts of people, entirely by mistake.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:07AM
A deeply flawed text.
Hundreds of examples of self-contradictory nonsense.
Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions [infidels.org]
This stuff was known LONG ago.
Self-Contradictions of the Bible -- William Henry Burr, 1819-1908 [google.com]
If somebody gave you a Science textbook filled with so many holes, you'd pitch it out the window as worthless.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:09PM
For certain values of religious types, yes. Others, no. Maybe you might also get an answer like, "for a nomadic people always on the razor's edge between existence and genocide it might make sense to prohibit sexual relationships which don't result in offspring. But six thousand years later it may matter much more that people learn to love one another no matter what their difference in lifestyle are, because the planet is filling up awfully fast and if we're to survive we must learn to get along." That may be a minority opinion, but it's the main one in the circles I travel in. Then again, we might not be what people expect of "religious types," either, even though we are religious....
Then again, there are also religious people who completely believe the point of relationships isn't "happiness" at all. On both sides of belief of the morality of homosexuality/homosexual behavior, pro and con.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:25AM (12 children)
I expect it's at least partially because lesbians are quite a bit more likely to either be on the giving or receiving end of domestic violence. Kind of puts a lie to the rosy picture painted in this study.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:03AM (11 children)
And I expect it is because Buzzie is making stuff up again, based only on his fevered conservative brainstem.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:35AM (10 children)
He's not wrong actually. We have the highest reported rate of domestic violence, though honestly I suspect it's higher among gay men but they simply don't dare report it. I had an abusive ex, though to be fair she's bisexual, not lesbian. I've made it a point only to date rock-solid gold-star lesbians since then and have never had issues.
Uzzard, of course, is simply annoyed I have better success with women than he does :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:45AM (6 children)
Just FYI, 'gold-star' has a particular meaning in that statement (I think). Not sure if 'rock-solid' is also comparable argot.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:30PM (5 children)
Yes, it means "absolutely positively never have, does not, and never will have sex with men." Basically, I look for people who are as sure that they are gay as I am--and this from the woman whose reaction from her mother on coming out was "No shit, I've known since you were four" followed by turning to my father and going "You lost that bet, Mark."
I try so, so hard not to be bi-phobic. But I have not had good experience with bisexual women, and for my own safety choose to avoid them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:05AM (4 children)
You know, I've had really bad luck with bi chicks as well. In this case that means I've been unlucky enough to spend longer than is strictly necessary to recognize the crazy train coming my way and run screaming. Maybe it's a thing, maybe it's not, but it's damned sure not worth it to me to find out.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:08AM (3 children)
I can't imagine you ever having had luck with any woman of any description. You strike me as the kind of person whose hand would develop five spontaneous headaches, one per finger, out of pure self-defense when the idea of beating off crossed your mind.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:35AM (2 children)
Ha! Good one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:44PM (1 child)
It's all made up on the spot, on-demand. I could probably do decent stand-up, except the world's decided that Women Aren't Funny (TM). Well, that, and Carlin basically said everything I want to already...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @10:35PM
It's like lower muscle density; it can be overcome to a degree. I'll admit Lucy and Carol Burnette were probably on humor enhancing substances but I don't think Maureen O'Hara ever was.
Straight up though, I think it's entirely a matter of being fully willing to look like a clown. It's probably harder to do that when part of your mind is always worrying about how you appear to others.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:49AM (2 children)
Yes, this is what I was talking about. Reported? Citation needed, otherwise we just feed TMB's rather sick fantasy life. And you suspect? Plausible, but not better then our Carrion Vulture's surmise. Here is my suggestion: how about we stick to verifiable facts on issues like this, otherwise Runaway2000 will stop by to tell us what he thinks, and no one wants that!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:09AM (1 child)
The lazy is strong in this one. LMGTFY [lmgtfy.com].
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 28 2017, @08:41AM
Doesn't display. Javascript only site? Now that is some abuse!
(Score: -1, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:41PM (1 child)
Can we all say "Propaganda"? Thought so. Remember kids, what is Law #1 of SJWs?
This isn't even a hard call, we can believe this improbable propaganda claiming that busted, dysfunctional people suddenly flip their statistical tendency toward shortened lives and horrible ends by getting "fake married" or we can assume they are lying bastards pushing an agenda and that internal writing such as 2 Studies That Prove Domestic Violence Is an LGBT Issue [advocate.com] is probably more accurate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:51PM
Study obviously rebuttaled. Just look at jmorris. Definitely not happy. Guess he should have married a SJW, variety is the spice of life, they say!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:58PM
Raising children well is one of the most difficult and demanding jobs in the world. Not only does it cost a lot of money and stress, but the pay off is almost entirely emotional, especially in modern society where the elderly are near-disposed of.
If we are considering child-rearing a full-time job (which it is) for two parents, that's a 72 hour work week (kids don't disappear on the weekends, so weekends are 2x8hr shifts) and let's say the workload is ideally split down the middle (it never is, and if it was, marriages would be happier overall, I'm sure) so that means for each adult in the relationship the math comes out to: job (40) + kid (36) = 76 total hours of work a week for each person, and that is in an ideal relationship where duties are split down the middle, and that simultaneous effort is never needed.
Say that more duties fall to the woman and the man only contributes half as much as she does for the kid? That's 40(job) + 54 (36/2=18 from the man's slack + 36 of her share) = 94 hours of work a week.
So you had better fucking believe that if one partner is doing 94 hours of work a week, that the other partner is going to be hearing about it, and that both of them will suffer for it.
Case in point: Everything is harder when you have to get something done. Wouldn't be surprised if jobless millenials blogging about classist privilege were happier than single parents working 3 jobs, either.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday December 26 2017, @10:58PM
What is it that a man/man or woman/woman (of any sexual orientation) find in each other in different kinds of relationships -- acquaintance, friend, buddy, comrade, partner, lover? And similarly for woman/man? I bet it ranges widely but clusters differentially at least in some areas, possibly also based on societal environment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:20PM
BLT?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:37PM (9 children)
Men want sex, sex, sex
Women want conversation, cuddling, a listener.
Gay guys get sex
Lesbians get conversation, cuddling, a listener.
What's so hard to figure out?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:45PM (1 child)
The series of traps and locks preventing unauthorized entry or exit from my sex dungeon.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday December 27 2017, @02:46AM
Like Saw, but I gotta dig the key out of my dick?
Ouuuuuch!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:40AM (4 children)
Women want sex too, don't be fooled. Some of us have "manly" sex drives. No, not me, but I do want it a couple of times a week minimum. It's just not polite or "ladylike" to mention, you see.
I've been told, BY a man, that men are much less complicated about sex, that it all happens in one place and emotions don't play much part in it. That's...hard to comprehend, for me. I couldn't ever have sex with someone I don't at least care very much for, if not someone I'm actually in love with. The thought of somehow being able to just fuck, with no attachment to your partner at all beyond lust, is just impossible for me to imagine. It sounds empty and sad, too.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 27 2017, @04:19AM
it all happens in one place
Supporting diagram. [blogdailyherald.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Unixnut on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:48AM (1 child)
"I've been told, BY a man, that men are much less complicated about sex, that it all happens in one place and emotions don't play much part in it. That's...hard to comprehend, for me. I couldn't ever have sex with someone I don't at least care very much for, if not someone I'm actually in love with. The thought of somehow being able to just fuck, with no attachment to your partner at all beyond lust, is just impossible for me to imagine. It sounds empty and sad, too."
I can tell you, as a man as well, that I can't have sex with someone I don't have feelings for, or know very well. Good sex requires trust, effort, and an innate understanding of what turns your partner on. All of which require time and effort to get to know the person, their personality, etc, and see if you actually have chemistry (which includes emotional bonds). I can't just meet someone and have a one night stand, I need to have some kind of attachment to them as a person, rather than a fuck object.
I don't like this trend of trying to stereotype genders into particular sexual behavior. I hear the "men just want unemotional sex, it is pure lust, etc...." really quite often. And yes, I have met men like that, although IMO they are like that due to other emotional problems rather than some innate "male behaviour". Likewise I met many women who are like that as well.
Interestingly, the "Sex for pleasure/lust" bit I found to be disproportionately skewed to homosexual/bisexual men and women I know (the number of times gay men propositioned me to go to the toilets for a "fun time" are numerous. Even if I were inclined to fuck men, I would not be able to just meet a random stranger in the club, and have sex there and then).
Likewise the Lesbians/Bi women I know really get laid a lot (as in really a lot, more than any man I know), and seem to have no trouble picking up women at a bar, taking them home (or just having fun in the toilets). They told me it is because women feel less threatened with another woman. If a man tried to pick them up at a bar, they worry about pregnancy, getting raped, STIs, or if the guy is violent. If it is a woman, they feel more like it is harmless fun, and are more game for a one night stand.
I guess when your method of having sex carries no risk of unwanted pregnancy, you can really indulge in it with a wide variety of partners, but as you said about yourself (and I am very much like you when it comes to sex and partners) you cannot pigeonhole people.
There are those capable of unattached, emotional sex, and those who cannot, of all genders and proclivities.
I cannot comment on whether their lives are "empty and sad", because they seem really quite happy with their lives as they are, which is important (far happier than I am in mine, at least). Some do also have long term partners as well, but as they are honest about having "open" relationships in that way. Also very common with homosexuals. I hardly ever heard about an open straight relationship, but many open homosexual relationships. Not sure why. I guess straight relationships are supposed to be "traditional", which includes the fidelity aspect, and with the eventual goal of children who do better in a non single parent structure. while gay ones already broke a massive taboo, generally don't have/want kids, and so are more relaxed about the whole sex/fidelity thing.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:42PM
ome do also have long term partners as well, but as they are honest about having "open" relationships in that way. Also very common with homosexuals. I hardly ever heard about an open straight relationship, but many open homosexual relationships. Not sure why. I guess straight relationships are supposed to be "traditional", which includes the fidelity aspect, and with the eventual goal of children who do better in a non single parent structure. while gay ones already broke a massive taboo, generally don't have/want kids, and so are more relaxed about the whole sex/fidelity thing.
I think that's it. If you're homosexual, you've already explicitly first questioned and then openly rejected one of society's major norms, so it's easy to do the same with the rest of society's norms. I think this is easy to do in many ways, such as rejecting religion. Once you realize that the "one true path" that was taught to you in your upbringing is total bullshit (or at least just doesn't work for everyone and doesn't leave any room for people who don't fit that mold), it's totally logical to then extend that line of thinking to everything else you've been taught.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:42AM
Okay, I over simplified: men, for the most part, especially when young, want sex more than, generally, women.
That doesn't leave out an emotional response or foreplay or love: I'm just saying men GENERALLY want more sex than women and women are GENERALLY more willing to accept an emotional relationship where as men want a more physical relationship.
I'm guessing that 2 guys in love will, over the course of a two year relationship, have more sex than two girls.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday December 27 2017, @06:49AM
How men and women form long-standing relationships with each other, considering the mismatch in those propensities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:56AM
Sorry, but you can't be more wrong. Men and women are pretty much the same. You simply have societal "norms" skewing these ratios a bit, but overall, we are quite the same. I suggest you find someone that agrees with you on the points, not making wild generalizations.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Bot on Tuesday December 26 2017, @11:37PM (13 children)
I am dubious about this study, because... car analogy time.
An interesting conversation I had with a car repairman was about the satisfaction people communicated about costly, mercedes class, cars. He posited that luxury cars have their share of problems, but buyers, having invested a lot in the car, will not advertise them as much as owner of regular and cheap cars. Because doing so would be auto-accusing self of having failed or of having got hold of the bad apple. Of course some are instead very vocal about shortcomings and stop buying that brand too.
Out of analogy, people who enter a difficult kind of relationship, be them same sex, or with class difference, or with age difference, are likely to inflate the perceived happiness, because they invested more energy than ordinary couple (mercedes class union), because they don't want the haters to be eventually right, because they consider the union an adventure and discomfort during adventures is expected or even welcomed.
Besides, happiness is the way of the body to tell the soul "you exist, you are, you are powerful" which is common when taking non conformist stances.
- "You marry canonically and everything is fine"
- "meh"
- "You marry an underage goat of your same sex and you are a billionaire and everything is fine"
- "FUCK YEAH"
Finally, happiness is not that great metric. Better metrics, but unfortunately heavily skewed towards traditional couples, for religious or social or economic reasons, could be divorce rate or length of marriage.
Speaking as a staunch supporter of one penis, one vagina (for purely geometric reasons) I nonetheless think that any measured difference in happiness between orthosexual and heterosexual* couples IS bias, cultural and psychological.
*) orthosexual being two, of opposite sex and heterosexual being any other combination, I dunno why you keep calling normal couples hetero, meatbags, newspeak is bad for your brain.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @03:46AM (5 children)
"Purely geometric reasons." That's almost cute, Bot.
This will probably come as a massive unexpected double-free fault to you, but most women don't rank intercourse or other penetrative sex anywhere near the top. Expound all you want on form following function or, heaven help us, "telos," but it won't change that fact. After a few inches in there aren't too many nerve endings in the vagina, and most of the ones that *are* there are in places it's pretty hard to hit in most PIV positions.
The thinly-veiled reference to the idea of gay couples being some kind of thrill-seekers or deliberate nonconformists isn't as cute, though. It's very inexperienced, rather callous, and frankly borderline-autistic. Do you call yourself "Bot" because you on some level recognize how detached from reality this mechanistic mindset of yours is?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Bot on Wednesday December 27 2017, @11:24AM (2 children)
Having known about the details of vaginal intercourse (is that relevant to the geometry of it all?) and having met couples that almost carried a "I'm homo, AMA" sign, I am not really recalculating, after your objections, it does not matter if the obstacles the couples have are objective, external, internal, subjective for the reasoning to work.
What you probably don't get is that I am no equivalent to the typically young American Rationalizer of the Universe, the guys thinking that a couple of syllogisms can prove what other people have been doing for ages as irrational and wrong.
No matter what my reasoning or conclusions are, they are mine and apply to me only. Other people can use different data and interpretation and come to different conclusions. That is the difference between a conversation and propaganda.
So, I had written some time ago that gays use an output port for input and that is an abomination. Last time I said for purely geometrical reasons I like orthosexuality rather than the alternatives. If you read condemnation of some people's tastes in it, there is none. If you read scorn or irony, well you are right. But, so what? I acknowledge your freedom of partner choice, you acknowledge my freedom of being amused by it. I also find amusement in many other races, religious choices, and social strata. Here, get the last one about the pope, translated. True story.
25 dec 2017, Francis is speaking through a TV set.
- "yo, come to telly, there comes the urbis et orbi"
- "bot, you believe this pope is whack, why you want his benediction"
- "the benediction is valid anyway and from an antipope is quite rare, come on"
*pope speaks latin*
- "amen"
*more latin*
- "amen"
- "ET BENEDICTIO DEI OMNIPOTENTIS, PATER + ET FILIUS + ET SPIRITUS SANCTI + .... amen"
- "amen... wait, what? no DESCENDAT? no... MANEAT SEMPER? Franciiiiissss!!! you forgot the verb! the benediction didn't get here!!! aaaaargh he does it on purpose! look at the holy spirit ready to spread, saying, well francis, when do I take off? aaaaarrrghhhhhh!!!"
And There Was Much Rejoicing
Happy now?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:35PM (1 child)
That is a *lot* of words to say "I'm an asshole, but also too much of a coward to do anything about it aside from allude to it on the internet. Please, please, please kick me in the nards so hard that *both* my grandpas feel it all the way down in Hell."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:15PM
I knew you would end up siding with Francis.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:34PM (1 child)
Really? That's contrary to all the talk about g-spot orgasms being stronger and more satisfying; those require penetration to achieve. Or maybe you meant to say penises aren't required to get them. That part seems more plausible. But if penetration by objects is nowhere near the top for women then there is an uncanny abundance of sex toys that do just that. Also it needs to be said that when it comes to penetration by actual penises there is more variety of shapes, sizes, and techniques for those than sex toy marketers ever dreamed of.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday December 27 2017, @08:21PM
Fingers are a lot better for G-spot orgasms--assuming you can have them, because not everyone can--than toys. No one's really sure about the anatomy there either; some people say they don't have a G-spot for example. I'm one of the lucky ones, I guess :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 27 2017, @01:21PM (6 children)
What marriages won't have some difference?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday December 27 2017, @05:04PM (5 children)
marriages with self, for instance.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 28 2017, @04:12AM (1 child)
You know...when we all told you to go fuck yourself, it was a figure of speech. Put the null modem cable down.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:13PM
Don't bother me for 15 minutes.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 28 2017, @12:47PM (2 children)
What would be the point of such an exercise?
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 28 2017, @11:10PM (1 child)
Your query did not specify that it had to be useful.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 29 2017, @06:37AM
(Score: 2) by iWantToKeepAnon on Sunday December 31 2017, @12:59AM
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy