So difficult to keep up! (Re: Memeber of the religious right running morally amuck)

Thanks, Rrhain. I've altered Wikipedia's article on Anal Sex accordingly.

Again, huh? Are these authors of studies, what?

quote:

---

But, point taken.

​

It's probably polygenetic. Epistatic. Some such.

---

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying it is partly genetic and partly not, like other behaviours such as alcoholism, organisational skills and intelligence.

Ah, yes. Sorry, I should have done really.That wasn't really my point though, what I mean is that XX = female is a very simple, straightforward genetic link. You have two XX chromosones, you're a woman; XY, you're a man - there's no environmental influence here. According to various studies referenced on Wikipedia inherited factors contribute between 0% and 60%. It's worth noting also that in Twin studies both should have had very similar intauterine biochemistry. Woah, there. I didn't say anything about 'ugly experiences', I'm not suggesting that orientation is determined in such crude ways. I also don't think people's suggestions of 'why' they are one thing or another can be relied on to any great degree.I don't think that the simplistic Choice/Born dichotomy actually describes how or why people end up with the personality traits they have.

I don't get this line of argument, I really don't. I think it's quite obvious that the penis and vagina are co-evolved for sexual reproduction, whereas as the anus and penis aren't - unless you have some kind of evolutionary explanation as to what selective advantage is conferred by such a co-evolution?What I really don't get is why anyone is arguing this point. "Natural" and "unnatural" are utterly stupid arguments for or against anything. Eating food at a table is "unnatural", using a computer is "unnatural", dying from diseases is quite "natural", having a significant number of women die in childbirth is "natural" - in short, being "natural" or "unnatural" tells us exactly nothing about whether something is good or bad.Further, your line of argument, Rrhain, that people's enjoyment of anal sex implies some kind of "design" is absurd. We enjoy all sorts of things that there is no possible way we can have been "designed" (by which I mean have evolved adaptively) to enjoy: computer games, driving fast cars, injecting Heroin, and so on, and so forth.Edited by Mr Jack, : Meaningful subtitle

What makes you think it's destructive behaviour, Nemesis? I look at my gay, and bisexual, friends and I don't see that their behaviour is any more destructive than that of my straight friends. Sure, some of them are messed up, so are some of my straight friends but among them they also have some of the strongest and most supportive and loving relationships I know. Why do you think they're harming themselves by that?Edited by Mr Jack, : Meaningful subtitle.

That would make sense but for the fact that there are no significant physiological difference in the design on the rectum and anus in humans and in mammals that don't engage in recreational sex.