Pet Shop Boys Community

there are people who were raised religious who become atheists and agnostics and there are people who are atheists and agnostics who convert to religion.its too confusing to get into the who's thinking for themslves and who isnt.

its better to just realize most people think for themselves anyways.

btw. we will get you. oh yes.

glennjridge wrote:there are people who were raised religious who become atheists and agnostics and there are people who are atheists and agnostics who convert to religion.its too confusing to get into the who's thinking for themslves and who isnt.

its better to just realize most people think for themselves anyways.

btw. we will get you. oh yes.

"We" as in "religion" in general or specifically "Catholicism" will never get me, Glenn. It already had me by accident of birth and lost me because I was encouraged to think for myself and question authority. There may very well be a "God" or a higher power and it's a lovely romantic notion that there is a God and a "better place" but, if there is, that God or higher power is not the preserve of the totalitarian narrow-minded bigots who organise prejudice and call it religion.

Now, to return to the topic of child abuse in the Catholic Church, it's bad enough that a significant minority of priests and religious have abused kids in their trust. That's certainly a legitimate stick with which to beat that organisation - but then you'd probably be beating a lot of organisations for that. However, it's the cover ups that have set the Catholic Church apart. Such a supposedly caring, loving Christian organisation should have been weeding out the perpetrators and handing them over to the authorities to ensure that justice is done. But the hierarchy has never been interested in justice for ordinary people. Instead, they covered up, moved on the abusers to the next parish and the next bunch of vulnerable kids, and pretended it was all a conspiracy against them. You see, morals are only for the proles. Still, if you can dupe people into adamantly believing in fairy stories, it's certainly worth a try.

Drico.

Meet the new Dr. Ruth.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/t ... d-sex.html

Fry never once said that women don't enjoy sex- the Guardian's headline did.

He was saying that men clearly like it and pursue it more, looking at it from a gay milieu.

He really does not deserve the shit he's gotten for this, especially from the hectoring feminists piping up at the Guardian. I love how they are nonstop about how men are all just horny dogs with sex on their mind, critical of that, and when Fry says what he said there's umbrage. We're just as sex loving as you! Your average gay man has probably had more partners this year than you've had in a lifetime, missus.

As if it were not a f***ing scientific truism that in male mammals there is a genetic advantage to being promiscuous, spreading those genes far and wide. And there is an inverse cost to female mammals, the care and resources of offspring that results. They have to be rather choosier. Why is this even a question in 2010?

Deschanel wrote: As if it were not a f***ing scientific truism that in male mammals there is a genetic advantage to being promiscuous, spreading those genes far and wide. And there is an inverse cost to female mammals, the care and resources of offspring that results. They have to be rather choosier. Why is this even a question in 2010?

I have to agree with this. There's no question in my mind that equality in the eyes of the law and in the workplace should be sacrosanct, and there is much evidence to suggest that many percieved differences between men's and women's behaviour are at least partially societal in origin, but it should still not be ignored that men and women ARE different.

Women may enjoy sex even more than men for all I know, but it's pretty obvious that men are by nature more promiscuous. It's in a woman's biological interests to make sure that she trusts the man she's sleeping with, so obviously women will be more reluctant at first to enter into a sexual relationship. There's no mystery there, it's just good sense based on millions of years of evolution.

Stephen Fry says he has been misrepresented by The Observer...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/oc ... icle-women?&

Your Funny Uncle wrote:

Deschanel wrote: As if it were not a f***ing scientific truism that in male mammals there is a genetic advantage to being promiscuous, spreading those genes far and wide. And there is an inverse cost to female mammals, the care and resources of offspring that results. They have to be rather choosier. Why is this even a question in 2010?

I have to agree with this. There's no question in my mind that equality in the eyes of the law and in the workplace should be sacrosanct, and there is much evidence to suggest that many percieved differences between men's and women's behaviour are at least partially societal in origin, but it should still not be ignored that men and women ARE different.

Women may enjoy sex even more than men for all I know, but it's pretty obvious that men are by nature more promiscuous. It's in a woman's biological interests to make sure that she trusts the man she's sleeping with, so obviously women will be more reluctant at first to enter into a sexual relationship. There's no mystery there, it's just good sense based on millions of years of evolution.[/quote. Culture is probably more of a determining factor than nature.common sense is entirely ideological.

raggatwin wrote:Culture is probably more of a determining factor than nature.common sense is entirely ideological.

I think that's right to a large extent when dealing with percieved differences between men and women, although in any nature/nurture debate I think its usually a compromise between the two. Also we are a social animal so to some extent society and evolution are intertwined. That said I think that sex drive is one of the most basic aspects of our nature and as such probably has the largest biological component.