Sunday, December 23, 2012

from Manhunt Daily

this is something i had to say about a post that was made on Manhunt Daily; here is the link to my comment.

enjoy !!

i'm the oldest of my siblings. and i am a same-gender-seeker (by at least 91%); as far as i know, my younger siblings are not same-gender-seekers (by at least 97%).

incidentally, i have a comparatively-lower libido than my peers (in my opinion).

maybe there is something to this "testosterone" component of genetic predisposition.
maybe not.

if i am, apparently, wired to experience a reduced-level of imperative to shoot my load (in/on/because of/with other dudes), then what explains those of my peers who feel a higher-than-average level of imperative to orgasm (on/with/in/because of other dudes)?

does testosterone really do what some scientists seem to be theorizing...or is it rather, the testosterone that i did receive (and presently make) didn't (and doesn't) reach all "hetero-relevant" and "sex-positive" parts of my brain (consistently)?

i am willing to wager that for every one "Nelly the Fabulous" type and for every one "Bruno the (Leather Clad) Destroyer" type, there are 78 "Average Joe" types whose only real distinguishing characteristic is they happen to be SGS.

maybe i should look over these studies, to see just what role testosterone is playing!

also, i have long-been a believer in the possibility that the disinclination/aversion to bringing forth off-spring is a function of "population control" — i personally know of one man who's brought forth two children ... who, 3 decades later, has long-since completely sworn his allegiance to boning biologically-born men only.

i know of one other man who had deluded himself into thinking he could be have a heterosexual relationship, and would have had children himself, except something happened to avert this.. ..and, a couple of decades later, he himself is 96% SGS.

i mention them, as way-of-allusion to all those other individuals (female and male) who, if they hadn't felt compelled to go against their natures, would have fulfilled their role of keeping the population down as intended.

there is a catch to the "natural population regulation" theory: one has to be inclined to believe in Intelligent Design or/and a Man in The Sky.

i'm agnostic, and i'm not really into Spookisms... ...but when i had considered just how much more competition for pussy there could be, if we fellows-all were at least bi-sexual, it had became harder for me to believe that the random cropping up of the homosexually-inclined (and its ilk) through the population, for what may very well have been millennia, is a complete coincidence.

then again.. ..what with sexuality being what it is, it would do all of us a lot of good to remember that we all are what we are, for different "internal" reasons. (this is within the same vein for why some have disposition of being submissive, and for some others to have a strong psychological aversion to any sort of fellatial activities but then harbour no especial problem with having their asses plowed.)

i am remain convinced that, if left to figure things out for themselves, humans would not have the hang-ups about "who" sticks "what" "where?" that we 'educated folk' have.

No comments:

Post a Comment

have you Commentary for this post?

then feel free to leave it for me, here.

also feel free to use your standard HTML Tags — if you so desire it.


follow me by e-mail. Taste the Rainbow.