Man.... Serena vs Osaka is going to be MUST SEE tv!!!!!!!!!!

[Earl-Hickey]

That is a really weird perspective. I have heard variations of it before, and it has always perplexed me how anyone can sincerely believe it is a logical viewpoint.

A lot of the most horrible acts of evil that have been committed have been done by people, based on ideas that were not their own. Religious extremists who commit acts of terrorism for example.

By your logic, it doesn't make them a bad person if they believe it is okay to kill innocent people in the name of their religion - because it isn't their own idea...

Willy

******

Pop willy in ******

Not in the ass

If you aren't attracted to women then your genetic line ends with you.

[Lomasexual]

Willy

******

Pop willy in ******

Not in the ass

If you aren't attracted to women then your genetic line ends with you.

I'll shove it in whatever hole my wife lets me. Twice on Sundays.

The question of how homosexuality fits in with evolution used to puzzle me too. It seems intuitive that it should have bred itself out of the species - in any species.

But it hasn't. So there is some other mechanism in play.

There are some decent theories to explain this. The one I find the most credible is that it is advantageous to the species as a whole, and to the closely related genetic lines, to have non-breeding members of the social group.

There are plenty of social species that keep non-breeding males around. They strengthen the group. However the non-breeding status of those males is usually not a choice. They want to breed, they are just prevented from doing so by more dominant males.
As the non-breeding males grow in strength they compete, fight, sometimes kill each other for the ability to breed.
There is an evolutionary advantage right there, in that having some of them not have the urge to breed prevents that high cost of competition, while leaving them around to assist in raising the young and protecting the group.

[Real King Kong]

A rational reason to consider it outside the norm is because it is statistically uncommon.

The norm tells you nothing more and nothing less.

Extreme capability in leadership, innovation or providing for others is outside the norm. So is left-handedness. So is homosexuality. So is psychopathy.

The norm really doesn't tell us much.

Tying it in to reproduction is also pretty meaningless.



So, you only have sex to reproduce? That is strange.

The thing is, that sex doesn't have a purpose as such. It is an act with consequences. To superimpose a purpose on top of it is to apply some kind of metaphysics.

If you are looking at it through a lens of evolutionary function, then it is definitely not only for reproduction. There are higher mammals who use it for recreation and for social cohesion.

I think you would have to be clearer about what you mean by 'perversions' and how you have established a causative effect from gratification.

Sex is the means of reproduction across species, not sure I would agree that it’s just some recreational act that happens to have the side effect of producing offspring.

I’m not saying that’s all sex is used for, but it is the main biological function.

Perverse gratification is major component to addiction, no?

[ShoulderRoll]

Serena is out. Nooo!

Osaka is going to beat Azarenka in the final.

[HitmanTommy]

Serena is out. Nooo!

Osaka is going to beat Azarenka in the final.

Wouldn't put a lot of money on that.

Defeating Azarenka is no easy task when she's zoned in.

[ShoulderRoll]

Wouldn't put a lot of money on that.

Defeating Azarenka is no easy task when she's zoned in.

We'll see.

She just had a 3 set match.

[HitmanTommy]

Osaka #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[travestyny]

Cong****, Naomi! Represent!

[ShoulderRoll]

Osaka #1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Told you, playboy.

[CHOWWOKKA]

Glad Serena lost.
Only because of how much of an annoying cnt she was last year