Thoughts? Doesn't this show that lesbian marriage should be legalised, and quickly, with a large majority of women identifying as bi-sexual...atleast so women don't feel forced into marriage with a man when they seem as attracted to other females according to this groundbreaking research.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2051284/More-half-women-bi-curious-attracted-women.html#

Dear progressive pat,

Not sure that I buy into all this.

Surveys are to be taken with a pinch of salt.
They're only as good as the researchers doing
the surveying - and probably it depends on
the size of the survey - and who did it represent?

To be useful, survey questions must be put in a
straightforward, unemotional language and must be
phrased so that all respondents will understand them
in the same way. The question, "Are you religious?"
is almost useless because it will be interpreted in various
ways by different people; it is necessary to ask more
specific questions about church attendance, belief in
God, and so on.

Respondents may also give false information, particularly
in face-to-face interviews. Finally, surveys rarely permit
in-depth studies of social behaviour, and they can be
expensive.

Most American social scientists are well educated,
urban, white, middle-class,and they naturally tend
to interpret reality
differently from people who don't share these
characteristics. Their background and interests,
for example, make them significantly more liberal
than scholars in other disciplines.

Inevitably, then, they like anyone else will be guilty
of some measure of bias - often unconscious to
interpret facts according to one's own values. This
problem occurs in all sciences, but it becomes
particularly acute in the social sciences, whose
subject matter often involves issues of deep human and
moral concerns.

Dog whistle much?

Isn't it more about people being able to live a 'normal' life being accepted for their sexuality as much as any other freedom we take for granted ie. religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association.

I suspect many of the older women who have left their marriages for a woman, are finally coming out of the bi-sexual/homosexual closet to which they were imprisoned by social pressures and these so called 'norms'. There are many men who have left marriages after coming to terms with their homosexuality, why not women too?

This is a baiting opener IMO, but wait for the stampede of usual suspects.

with the way things are sliding thanks to the secular dogma of moral relativism, havng sex with animals will be seen as 'normal.' No womder so many teenagers are committing suicide with such warped thinking as lesbian being 'normal'.

IMO from observation and a rich life, from pre pubescence girls feel comfortable in physical and emotional interaction with other females and girlfriends, they kiss cuddle and hold each other without a sexual context. During and after puberty as they sexually mature the transfer to sexual interaction is an extension of existing behavior but with a psychological driver. They are literally socially groomed for sexual duopoly.

Whereas boys keep physical interaction to a minimum and even when emotionally driven it is usually displayed by rough housing or some form of vibrant interaction. Emotionally boys transfer nothing to each other in comparison to girl’s interactions, so to start from scratch at fifty it is a big learning curve and pretty alien to the vast majority of males.

Re post menopause dykes, why do a large number of them grow a disdain for men? The boys on our team who play faggoty still love you girls.

Sonofgloin I think it's a disappointment thing.

I believe women have much higher expectations than men. They have been fed the idea that a husband, children & a nice home will bring them fulfillment.

Perhaps it's all a cruel joke forced on them by their animal instincts, what ever, they do seem to fall for it.

Suddenly they find themselves no longer young, they have paid their dues to the dream, the man, kids & house, but they find themselves empty, there is no fulfillment.

Obviously this can't be her fault, so it must be his. There are tens of thousands of these souring middle aged women, with nothing to offer their men, or themselves. These are the ones ripe to try something else. After the new carpets kitchen & bathroom all failed to give a lift, why not try a girlfriend?

The bloke never expected much, a nice car, a tinny, that he never uses because the family aren't interested, & some stubbies in the bear fridge, what more could you expect.

He can't help her, as he can't understand her problem. He can't imagine what else she expects, & she can't tell him, when she doesn't know herself.

Monogamy just don't work, how did we ever fall for it? While women come out of separation quite comfortable, I think we will see more lesbianism. I wonder what the family court will do then?

Just a thought, but could this be an evolutionary hangover? With the men off hunting and fighting, was it the norm for our remote ancestral mothers to get it on together? It seems possible that such arrangements might lead to better outcomes for the children of both women in an environment in which the men were rarely around and often met untimely deaths.

It might explain a great deal about the world it seems some are trying to create? Of course, in todays world, the men are always around.

Perhaps my opposition to feminism is misguided? Perhaps it's time for the men to all shoot through to somewhere else and leave the women to it, dropping in occasionally to make sperm donations and drop off some essentials and otherwise let the girls get on with it?

Anyone know of an empty island big enough to hold 10 million or so blokes, or should we just demand WA? There's a train line running straight there, so it wouldn't be a hassle to shove the pubescent boys on as soon as the testosterone started to show.

I was simply going to suggest that if the girls are bothering each other, blokes can just get on with things - as in the old joke about the engineer whose wife assumed he was with a mistress and his mistress who assumed he was with his wife whereas he was getting in some decent work.

I like Anti's suggestion more. If we are to have a physically separate "coventry" for males (Shed Province?), could we have one free of god-botherers too?

Rusty

That article should have been in the political section of that website.
Lisa Diamond's theory of sexual fluidity among women has been used by everyone from Oprah to NARTH to bolster political points of view.
Gender studies is just Gender politics.

Hasbeen as you say it is about expectations, and it is about boundaries. Consider the tv shows from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s that still occupy a reasonable proportion of today’s televised piffle. Almost exclusively the scenario was based around a family unit, which was the social expectation. What enforced that expectation? Or alternately did the expectations develop from the enforcements.

What I mean is that the population had cultural enforcements for that theme. Religion enforced the morality and family aspects, while the judicial system classed women as second class citizens when any aspect of litigation arouse between a man and wife. From the mid 80’s religion fell in a heap and the laws changed to positively discriminate for women in family litigation.

So the women now had the freedoms that males have always enjoyed and what have they done with it, hit menopause and turn bi sexual by the stats in this thread. Men need parameters and a stick to keep them in line, but women need higher walls on their parameters and if you hit them with the stick the courts or the pro women lobby groups will have you for breakfast.

HB, all I can say is “women gone native”.

runner
It is 'normal' for homosexuals to be attracted to same-sex even if it is not the societal norm - as in the most common statistically speaking. Do we discriminate against blondes because there are less of them than brunettes?

I cannot see how anyone can honestly compare homosexuality with having sex with animals. It is an unfair comparison designed to shock.Where is the compassion to treat people with respect and dignity even if their sexuality differs from the norm (the average).

What harm can same sex relationships cause to others? Why are some men threatened by this? Women are not making negative assertions about homosexual men. It is not all about you. Women are not saying let's leave men to it and just drop in occasionally to pop out a baby. It is just ludicrous this sort of mentality and I am surprised we still dwell in this sort of nonsense.

runner
You fail to convince that homosexual relationships in anyway diminish or threaten heterosexual relationships. Why the aggression? You talk about moral relativism but fail to establish why it is immoral. Who is being harmed (the test of morality).

I am not sure why the opening post only deals with lesbians. Many men have left marriages once out of the closet. What is the difference. Menopause may just give women the courage to follow their true feelings. The nurturing oestrogen being replaced with some more direct testosterone.

Let's face it when people get to a certain age they no longer feel the need to impress people, to conform to societal fripperies and superficialities like keeping up with the Jones'; many older people feel more able to be honest about what they want in life. This is nothing new.

As for suicide, teenage suicide is higher among homosexuals because not only are these kids dealing with the usual process of growing up but with outright discrimination and aggression. Mostly from people professing to be morally superior.

Pelican:"I am not sure why the opening post only deals with lesbians."

From the linked article:"More than half of women are attracted to other women - and it gets more pronounced as they get older"

Any other questions?

Well the article states it is so, it must be true.

What was I thinking. It is not unsurprising that it is older women coming out given the baby boomers were still reticent about identifying as homosexuals. Younger women and men are less restricted thanks to a growing acceptance.

Babyboomer men and women have been coming out for a while now. It is not news. Aren't we all over the idea that homosexuality should be hidden. Surely it is better that people are not forced to live a lie and in the process ruining their own life and that of their spouse.

Also...half of women? Really! This is bunkum. More from the loony Right to instil fear, intolerance and the 'sky is falling' syndrome. I wasn't polled and I am not sexually attracted to other women. I doubt myself and my many female colleagues and friends who are not attracted to other women are extraordinary or that different from the norm ie. average.

Yes I have another question. Why are so many male posters on OLO out to negatively stigmatise women in anyway possible. It seems gender issues are being dictated by the jaded men's society. What is the relevance of the gender in coming out as gay?

These types of masculinists are no better than the man-hating rad fems. You cannot fight extremism with extremism and that is all this dog whistle post is about-more fodder for the fire. It is just getting tiresome that is all.

Pelican, the original post was by somebody advocating for gay marriage, not by anybody "bashing women".

I'm not sure why you think that mentioning women have a penchant for lesbianism is attacking women either. If it was mentioned that women menstruate monthly, frequently leading to increased time off from work would that also be bashing women? What if it's true? (it is, BTW)

If it was mentioned that young men have a greater tendency to act out violently when drunk, would that be attacking men? What if it was untrue? (it isn't)

Not everything to do with gender is also to do with advocacy. Some things are just interesting in their own right and as prompts for further consideration of their implications.

On the subject of the article, I have to say that I don't find the research at all startling. Women have been told for two generations that they are "better" than men and that men are nasty and brutish. It seems unlikely that such messages have gone unheard.

Moreover, there has been an enormous campaign of advocacy for homosexuality as a norm, with some very high profile women in the media/show business particularly making a point about their sexuality. Given the ability of people like Ellen de Generis to influence people on other issues, it seems reasonable that she has had influence in unanticipated ways as well.

Everything I've read about human sexuality makes it clear that women are sexually less constrained than men and that their principal driver of sexual desire is intimacy. Women are just as able to provide that intimacy to each other as men are able to provide it for them, perhaps more so. The actual mechanics is pretty simple and every woman I've known has had a vibrator or dildo in her top drawer. It doesn't make much difference who's using it.

Now, about my plan for male secession...

My God, I hope this isn't true. Women are so beautiful, soft and round, that surely there is no better evidence that there might be a god, or goddess, and a kind goddess at that.

Certainly women should, and do, have the right to pair off with other women but every pairing-off makes the world a colder, less enjoyable place for many men. I certainly have no desire to hang around with some bunch of hairy, smelly men, scratching themselves and f@rting and talking about what they have in their sheds. Let me have women about me who are fat and cuddly and such as sleep a'nights, eventually.

Joe

Secession Anti - nice to see your sense of humour at the fore. :)

I may have jumped the gun a bit (a habit of late) and was expecting this to be another salivating producing post for some men to kick the boot into women. The statistics do seem rather high to be taken too seriously.

It is so hard being a victim sometimes. :)

Pelican as is common when you have a fixed closed mind on an issue you miss the point

'It is 'normal' for homosexuals to be attracted to same-sex even if it is not the societal norm - as in the most common statistically speaking.'

Ask any teenager whether it is normal to want to have sex with a different boy or girl every week. Of course as they watch it happening on TV nightly and their hormones run amuck many would say yes. Moral relativity makes the perverted, abnormal, unhealthy acceptable because absolutes are rejected.

Many people believe having sex with the same sex is okay but find sex with animals abhorent (except maybe some of our preeminent ethicist). Without any moral basis you really have no basis to say either is wrong or right. There is plenty of medical evidence to show that sodomy is a very unhealthy activity. There is also loads of evidence that denying a child a father is also very detremental. So why promote lifestyles so detrimental to society?

"Without any moral basis you really have no basis to say either is wrong or right."

Runner in reality thiests are not in a better place on that. They've picked one concept of god amongst many that people have believed in at various times then run with some variation of interpretation of that that god's rules (generally mixed in with some cultural practices).

You don't really have the absolutes nailed down either. We work with the mix of values/ethic's morals that seem to make the most sense in the context of the other things we know or believe.

Whilst a lot of thiest's may never want to accept that they are now trying to follow the absolute decree's of their god it's rarely that clear cut in practice.

Thiests may get obsessed about the concept of a moral basis but it's really a figment of their own imaginings and not the foundation you like to tell yourselves it is.

R0bert

Robert you write

'Runner in reality thiests are not in a better place on that.'

While many things are not cut and dried many are. We would both agree that child abuse is abhorent which shows that agnostics/athiest generally do believe in absolutes. When it comes to pornography, sodomy or fornication a follower of Christ knows these things are not only wrong but destructive towards a society. Generally on the topic of lesbians I find that the homosexual lobby is self obsessed in gaining approval and acceptance for their actions no matter how much harm is done to society.

You write

'Thiests may get obsessed about the concept of a moral basis but it's really a figment of their own imaginings and not the foundation you like to tell yourselves it is.

I think it more a case that people who hold to decent family values are thoroughly sick of the homosexual lobby obsession in throwing their lack of morals down people's throats at every opportunity. Just look at how hard the ABC has been promoting the 'gay'lifestyle for a number of decades.

runner, I agree with parts of that post although I have very different views on homosexuals than you do and consider your attitudes to them (and that of many of your fellow believers) to be abhorent and damaging to society. In particular the pain you cause to homosexuals struggling with discrimination is horrific.

I'm not all that keen on the in your face nature of the gay and lesbian mardi-gras either BTW, I get that it's mostly a reaction to the oppression that they have faced but in my view it perpetuates much of what it seeks to counter. It put's the focus on the extremes rather than the very ordinary nature of the lives of many homosexuals.

The point is though that we all end up applying our own judgment to most moral/ethical issues, even if it's at the point of deciding to accept a particular concept of god over another. Often those views are strongly influenced by what we've grown up with than a clearly thought out moral stance.

I don't like either extreme, the Mr and Mr's Grundy peering in other peoples bedroom windows and trying to control what other consenting adults choose to do nor those who insist on making a big deal their own choices in public.

R0bert

R0bert,
On runners last post I would support him one hundred percent. Next we will have pedophiles complaining they are discriminated against, and their human rights denied merely because a section of society wants to castrate or kill them.

Regarding the article being used to justify same sex marriage is an attempt to justify an immoral position. These women if once married now demonstrate their vows to their husbands and loyalty to their family which is the crux of marriage meant little, so are unsuitable candidates for a long term monogamous commitment.

This is a different situation to having multiple wives living in the same house as Islam allows. In those households women have lesser rights than a man, but can have close relationships with each other; and are ideally for the whole of life.

The religious nut cases are in full swing with their higher level self-righteousness.

This comment is a bit rich, don't you think?

"Next we will have pedophiles complaining they are discriminated against"

Well when it comes to child-molesters, the religious fraternity seems to have its own leadership there, doesn't it:)

I don't think its wrong when women find love with-in themselves....I think its quite beautiful how nature gave females that choice. Now there's another feeling nature can give, and that's the " world is full feeling " and you don't have to use too much brain juice to figure out the growing trends, that more and more people going in that direction and giving child-birth the big NO.

Like one of my many favorite UN-ANSWERED QUESTIONS..." When your child leaves school, where is it going to go?"

Dont worry, Iam not expecting an answer anytime soon:)

You religious people just amaze me with your lack of commonsense.

CACTUS

runner
While I respect your right to make moral judgements for yourself as we all do, I don't accept that your morality is any more right than others when applying the 'no harm' principle. The key is surely freedom of the individual and minimal interference by the State where there is no harm or great inconvenience to others.

Having sex with animals is clearly abhorrent because an animal cannot give consent in any meaningful way and is not an equal participant, being party to some person's fetish or whim. It is also crossing species which is a whole other issue.

Same sex relationships are not causing harm to any other person nor threatening heterosexual relationships.

How is homosexuality causing harm where there are two consenting adults.

The key is consent and obvioulsy child abuse is different. Child abuse involves manipulation, grooming and force by an adult without consent from a child. The nature of child abuse is the presence of an unequal and intimidating power dynamic.

"Same sex relationships are not causing harm to any other person nor threatening heterosexual relationships.

Amen to that!

The religious mindset seems awfully selfish in dictating other peoples lives.

Runner, you can preach to them all you like, its not against the law...yet, but your idea for leading my life, well....I will keep a civil tongue in mind.

CACTUS

Pelican you write

' The key is surely freedom of the individual and minimal interference by the State where there is no harm or great inconvenience to others.'
Who other than the homosexuals themselves are looking for more State interference with things? There is also plenty of harm done to kids deprived of a father. Just look at the Prisons and stop burying your head in the sand,

Runner,
True! Prisons are full of homosexual acts and in many cases not consenting.

90% of statistics are made up by the author to make a point.

This stat claimed by the author confirms that same sex preference is a educative process not at all a product of nature.

Precisely the reason sexual preference is not a family matter therefore potentially circumventive of the normal process of growing up.

I would be more comfortable after reading this trumped up tripe, if the natural space between the tub thumping same sex advocates such as this poster and children be maintained. Before education ends up holding dominion over physiology, and the views of a remarkably small number of self interested and misguided people hold dominion over nature.

runner
How are the homosexuals looking for more interfence by the State. Arguing for equal rights to marriage under legislation is hardly interference when those rights are available to others.

I don't want to see kids deprived of a father either (or a mother) and the prisons are full of people from disadvantaged backgrounds mainly. High divorce rates and abandonment issues due to violence and poverty are not uncommon in these situations.

Divorce does not deprive kids of a father only an environment where two parents live in the same house, which is the ideal of course unless violence or misery mars that idyllic existence.

You still have not convinced me what harm there is especially in relation to this thread where the women polled are past menopause and clearly not of an age to have any more children. There is no issue of fatherlessness.

It is common knowledge that men don't look at women over 40 anyway so what does it matter. :)

"It is common knowledge that men don't look at women over 40 anyway so what does it matter. :)"

Those men are missing out then.

R0bert

I can handle the idea of two women having it off, but two men is just beyond belief.

579....said...

"I can handle the idea of two women having it off, but two men is just beyond belief.

That's fine if your a bloke, but it must be the same thoughts the other way around, don't you think?

And here's the biggest question, why are you thinking about other peoples sex lives anyway?.....Your not one of Runners hideous porn watchers are you?...runner said that's a quick way to hell.

Now, thinking about heaven and hell, which one would be best for me?

Well, lets weigh it up shall we:)

1...Heaven...what actually is heaven?..is it the best sex you've ever had, is it a bowl of chocolate ice-cream? or are we stuck with Runner and his mates...( that to me would be hell if runners anything to go by )

2..Hell...what is hell? is it all you can eat fast food shops? or ACDC rocking all night long, with two of the hottest lesbian's in a jelly/mud fighting contest?

mmmmm hard choice...lol....

You be the judge:)

CACTUS