Is it in the Genes?

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=JPaul]

I think you'll find that those and such as those have agreed that it is being mankerized.

The JPaulism is a fantasy, an urban myth if you will. It has only ever existed in the head of those who cannot achieve that which you so easily accomplished.

The admission of fallibility.

JPaulisms were around before mankerisms.

I know 'cause I came up with teh word (JPaulism, at least on here) and manker was no where around.

[Busyman]

Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?

Who did that?

[JPaul]

[QUOTE=Busyman]

JPaulisms were around before mankerisms.

I know 'cause I came up with teh word (JPaulism, at least on here) and manker was no where around.

Have you reason to believe it is used elsewhere.

[JPaul]

Why are people using the fact that different people like different to suggest that proves genes have nothing to do with liking or disliking things when we all have uniqueness in our genetics?

Who did that?

It might have been me, I can't understand what it means.

Tho' to be fair I often struggle when a sentence contains 33 words and one punctuation mark.

[Snee]

It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.

I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?

Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass.

It's in her jeans, like

[Busyman]

Who did that?

It might have been me, I can't understand what it means.

Tho' to be fair I often struggle when a sentence contains 33 words and one punctuation mark.

The password is:

Run-On

[Busyman]

It's just that some conclusions are made because they fit and necessarily because it's right.

I mean I choose someone based on genetic material?

Maybe you are right, as long as that a good amount of that genetic material is in her ass.

It's in her jeans, like

I like...big butts....and I cannot lie..................

A woman with a nice shapely fat ass brings out the primal in me.

I just want to pull an all-nighter,

[JPaul]

It's in her jeans, like

I like...big butts....and I cannot lie..................

A woman with a nice shapely fat ass brings out the primal in me.

I just want to pull an all-nighter,

You pull your "all-nighter" if you want mate.

Or anybody else's for that matter.

[MagicNakor]

Now, I'm not sure if this is the article hobbes was talking about that he ended up Googling... Regardless, this one's from Time.

If you want to stir up trouble at a party-or better still, a bar-try bringing up the question of whether homosexuality is something people are born with or something they choose. The issue has always been controversial, and it's currently at the center of a political debate in the States as well, thanks to the question of gay marriage. As a result, whenever science has something to say about the biology of sexual preference, it's bound to make headlines.

That's exactly what happened [the week of May 16th]. Researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden who had earlier shown that hormonelike pheromones stimulate the human hypothalamus-a part of the brain that governs sexual arousal-took the experiment one provocative step further. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they reported that gay men don't respond to the chemicals the same way as straight men do.

"It clearly substantiates the idea that there's a biological substrate for sexual orientation," says Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the authour of Science of Desire: The Gay Gene and the Biology of Behaviour. "This is a highly significant result."

The experiment was elegantly simple. Just as they had in a series of tests in 2001, the Swedish scientists isolated two substances suspected of being human pheomones-an estrogen-like chemical distilled from women's urine and a tesosterone-related chemical derived from male sweat. Using both MRI and PET scans, the researchers found that women registered the female pheromone in the smell-processing part of the brain. But when women sniffed male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up as well. In men, the results were exactly opposite.

All that had been shown before. What was new in the recent experiments was the inclusion of gay men. "Gay men are a great control group for this kind of study," says Hamer, "because they're pretty much the same as straight men except for that one factor." Sure enough, when the Swedish scientists ran the experiment this time, the results were striking: when gay men were exposed to male pheromones, their hypothalamuses lit up just like a woman's. Female hormones did nothing for them.

What the study doesn't show, however-despite what some scientists claimed-is that sexual preference is biologically hardwired and thus present from birth. That idea is pretty much accepted by most gays and by many biologists as well. But it is refuted by those-generally on the religious right-who have a stake in believing that homosexuality is a personal choice rather than an inborn trait.

Even though last week's study strengthens the argument that desire may be triggered in part by chemical signals, it doesn't necessarily prove that gay men are preordained to pick up on male pheromones. It could also be that their brains learn to respond to them over time and with experience.

You might be able to test the proposition, says Hamer, by doing the experiment on people at different ages, to see if the response changes after early childhood. Nobody has tried that yet. The Swedish team is currently working on a related study to test how lesbians respond to female pheromones. Last week's paper also can't answer the question of how important a role pheromones play in desire. Conventional wisdom used to be that people could not detect them at all. That's because the vomero-nasal organ, a pheromone-sensitive structure in the nose that's very active in mice, for example, is largely vestigial in humans. Although it now seems that pheromones are somehow involved in arousal, their role could still be minimal.

-Michael D. Lemonick

[hobbes]

You will have to excuse my off topic comment here.

One could almost think the article was a joke, with a very subtle wink.


Michael D. Lemonick

Lets put that "D" where it should be.

Micheal Lemondick

Then we have the expression "sucks lemons"

So his name would read : Michael sucksdick

Hmmm, coincidence.

Who made that coffee, it tasted funny? Hey, this isn't my computer.