Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

[Guest guest]

Not in keeping with the natural plumbing? So because I have a womb, every

sexual encounter I have needs to have procreation as its intended outcome or

it's unnatural?

Calling homosexual behavior " degenerate " and " unnatural " is insensitive and

thoughtless hate-speech, pure and simple, no matter how cutesy the smiley-faces

are that you put with it. People to this day are harassed, abused, and killed,

socially rejected, arrested, and otherwise discriminated against for

demonstrating homosexual behavior, so I don't think it's too much to ask that

people choose their language much more carefully when referring to one-tenth of

the population PLUS all those who have expanded their own realm of sexual

attraction to include both sexes.

Jane Rowland <classicalwriter@...> wrote:

>>Well, my thought is that you seem to be implying that homosexual behavior is

degenerate and unnatural.>>

I suppose it would have to be " de-generate " in that gays cannot procreate, or

generate, and unnatural in that it is not in keeping with the natural plumbing

of the individual. No offense meant, Im sure on Ishtr's part.

jane

[Guest guest]

Jane,

> I think it makes perfect sense. Poor nutrition, part. the ingestion of high

> amounts of phytoestrogens and anything that would disrupt the endocrine

> system is going to disturb the hormone cascade. More estrogen in males, more

> feminine attributes, also more *deviant* behavior, deviant in that it

> DEVIATES from what a healthy hormonal response would be, given healthy

> hromones.

> This is not about homo rights, but hormones, behavior and diet, period.

Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?

When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the

issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW

estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE

exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans

judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature

concluding that no consistent association between hormones and

homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after

hundreds of studies.

If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about for some time.

Can too much estrogen make females more masculine?

Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming daily, from soy,

from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God knows what they put in our meat,

it sure seems to me, as a woman of almost 47 years that women are getting more

agressive and men are almost getting feminine

I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who are speeding and

driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday driversare men. I see more women

driving and men in the passenger seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women

are getting much more in your face and lacking what used to be considered the

normal social graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread

winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier 40's or

longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would have not been seen 30

years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social, things that are being taught in

school, style changes, things they see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my

time I have seen such a shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women.

Maybe I'm just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones are

doing to both the males and females and if there is any correlation. And if so

I wonder what the young men and women will be like 50 years from now.

Lorie

[Guest guest]

>>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>>

You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you

kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course!

No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I

assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.)

It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an

academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection

observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic

environment, one with no lab.

Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to

you or perhaps you, so its not personal.

Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. We

all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick "

research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like

to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a

respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights

already? It's a bit soon, I venture.

>>>When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the

issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW

estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE

exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans

judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature

concluding that no consistent association between hormones and

homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after

hundreds of studies.>>>

Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see

here.

Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it

conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be

provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a

decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can

really limit the ability to think outside the litter box.

For example, your second example contradicts your third and only

strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior.

Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association "

in any number of instances.

Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male

homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh.

>>If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence.

Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing

unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence

that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and

sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in

cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some

boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the

streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can

say?

Jane, having more fun than should be allowed

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>>> >>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

> association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>>

>

> ³You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you

> kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course!

>

> No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I

> assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.)

>

> It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an

> academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection

> observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic

> environment, one with no lab.²

>

> So, all such explorations, are, by definition, solely in the spriit of

> science, and cannot have any underlying prejudicial assumptions? So, those

> scientists who researched the mental inferiority of blacks (names....Jensen

> and someone else?) - there were no underlying assumptions there, of course.

> There is a French academic (Faurisson?) who is a Nazi revisionist. His

> research, of course, cannot be fundamentally bigoted.

>

> People like you absolutely disgust me. I don¹t care if this sounds personal.

> On a public forum, someone implies that homosexuals are engaging in unnatural,

> Œdegenerate¹ behavior, and people jump on the bandwagon, insisting that it is

> just an academic question being raised. And I am the only person who objects

> to this? At least who is much younger than you in all probability, but

> thousands of times more intelligent, has the patience to point out errors ­ I

> have no such patience.

>

> I don¹t see much difference between the questions raised a few weeks ago about

> diet being able to ward off various serious diseases. This is offered in the

> same spirit, in the guise of serious scientific inquiry. It would be

> hilarious, if it didn¹t exemplify why homosexuals (blacks, women, jews) have

> historically been dehumanized.

>

> There is such a thread of hateful ignorance that permeates this list. I read

> it because the nutritional issues interest me, and people like for all

> of my historical disagreements with him, have interesting things to say on the

> matter, and have researched these issues in far more depth than I ever will.

> But I absolutely cannot help calling out a bigot when I see one.

>

> Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to

> you or perhaps you, so its not personal.

>

> Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question. We

> all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick "

> research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like

> to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a

> respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights

> already? It's a bit soon, I venture.

>

>>>> >>>When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the

> issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW

> estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high TESTOSTERONE

> exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans

> judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature

> concluding that no consistent association between hormones and

> homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after

> hundreds of studies.>>>

>

> Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see

> here.

>

> Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it

> conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be

> provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a

> decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can

> really limit the ability to think outside the litter box.

>

> For example, your second example contradicts your third and only

> strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior.

> Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association "

> in any number of instances.

>

> Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male

> homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh.

>

>>> >>If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence.

>

> Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing

> unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence

> that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and

> sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in

> cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some

> boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the

> streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can

> say?

>

> Jane, having more fun than should be allowed

[Guest guest]

>

> Sorry ­ my email just doesn¹t put in the quotations sometimes, and I forgot

> to clarify who said what. My post below (obviously) ends as below:

>

>

>>> >>Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

> association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>>

>

> ³You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you

> kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course!

>

> No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I

> assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.)

>

> It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an

> academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection

> observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic

> environment, one with no lab.²

>

> So, all such explorations, are, by definition, solely in the spriit of

> science, and cannot have any underlying prejudicial assumptions? So, those

> scientists who researched the mental inferiority of blacks (names....Jensen

> and someone else?) - there were no underlying assumptions there, of course.

> There is a French academic (Faurisson?) who is a Nazi revisionist. His

> research, of course, cannot be fundamentally bigoted.

>

> People like you absolutely disgust me. I don¹t care if this sounds personal.

> On a public forum, someone implies that homosexuals are engaging in unnatural,

> Œdegenerate¹ behavior, and people jump on the bandwagon, insisting that it is

> just an academic question being raised. And I am the only person who objects

> to this? At least who is much younger than you in all probability, but

> thousands of times more intelligent, has the patience to point out errors ­ I

> have no such patience.

>

> I don¹t see much difference between the questions raised a few weeks ago about

> diet being able to ward off various serious diseases. This is offered in the

> same spirit, in the guise of serious scientific inquiry. It would be

> hilarious, if it didn¹t exemplify why homosexuals (blacks, women, jews) have

> historically been dehumanized.

>

> There is such a thread of hateful ignorance that permeates this list. I read

> it because the nutritional issues interest me, and people like for all

> of my historical disagreements with him, have interesting things to say on the

> matter, and have researched these issues in far more depth than I ever will.

> But I absolutely cannot help calling out a bigot when I see one.

>

[Guest guest]

Jane,

> >Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> >increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> >homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

> >association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?>>

> You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you

> kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course!

What is absurd is that there are over 350 studies on the relationship

between hormones and sexuality indexed for PubMed and that rather than

look into it and see if there is any established connection for a

hormonal cause for homosexuality, those who advocate this position

simply refuse to look for any of it and nevertheless continue to

appeal to popular prejudice about hormones and popular prejudice about

sexuality such as estrogen's association with women and therefore

femininity, and male homosexuality's association with femininity.

This is not science, but appeals to intuitive concepts that are in

some ways not even correct. Estrogen is essential for bone-building

in men and women, but no one thinks that homosexuality must be caused

by estrogen because homosexuals have such strong bones. But it is

very easy to allude to the common perception that estrogen is a

woman's hormone and that women are feminine and that gay men are

either feminine or woman-like.

> No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me, I

> assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.)

> It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition. It's an

> academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical connection

> observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic

> environment, one with no lab.

No, it isn't like a scientific discussion because it keeps persisting

without any attempt to look at the evidence that is already there. I

provided a random sample of studies on homosexuality and hormones on

the other list we had this discussion on that all refuted the notion

of high estrogen causing homosexuality so I would think that it would

be the turn of the folks taking the opposite position to find some

supportive research.

Obviously you would be completely justified in presenting the

hypothesis if it hadn't already been studied; however, since there are

hundreds of studies on the issue it behooves one purporting to engage

in an acadmemic discussion to do the acadmic thing and look at the

research that's out there.

To do so isn't to wage an inquisition. It's to follow the normal

process of logical reasoning.

I'm quite happy to look at some evidence that estrogen is causing

homosexuality, but I think it's quite anti-scientific for folks to

keep repeating that it is probably true because it is so obvious

rather than to look at whether the existing research might support or

refute the notion.

> Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone close to

> you or perhaps you, so its not personal.

I don't have any personal issue at all with homosexuality. If

Pottenger observed homosexuality I think that's interesting and I'd

like to see a good description of it and I'd like to see if it could

be replicated by other researchers. I don't, however, take

Pottenger's assumptions about what cats do in the wild to have any

validity unless someone can explain what type of experience Pottenger

had examining animals in the wild and convince me that this statement

was something other than assumptions about what wild animals do due to

assumptions about what is and isn't natural.

I do not object to the idea that wild animals do not exhibit

homosexuality. I have no idea whether they do. I found a study on

sheep where homosexual sheep were identified, but perhaps those

particular sheep were very fond of clover. I have no idea.

> Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question.

Did someone question it?

>We

> all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very quick "

> research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would like

> to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a

> respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights

> already? It's a bit soon, I venture.

I think I've been extremely clear that I did a very, very quick and

very random look at the three most recent results that came up, every

single one of which refuted the high estrogen--> homosexuality theory.

I'm very, very open to the possibility that there is evidence that

supports this theory, but I would think that if there is, someone

advocating the position should find some of it.

This is different than what Ishtar was saying. Ishtar was talking

about nutrient deficiencies, I thought, and I offered the thought that

it was plausible that nutrient deficiencies could be a signal for

overpopulation, since someone else mentioned a study indicating

overpopulation caused homosexuality in rats.

I have no problem with anyone offering either theory. I only

responded negatively to the phytoestrogen theory because the last time

we had this discussion it was left where I was the only one who had

looked for any evidence on the matter and found evidence refuting it

and pointed everyone to this gold mine of >350 studies where they

could look for something that could support it but the discussion

seems to be stuck in the very same spot.

> Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more to see

> here.

I didn't say I settled the issue by any means.

> Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it

> conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence cant be

> provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a

> decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work can

> really limit the ability to think outside the litter box.

In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a laboratory.

> For example, your second example contradicts your third and only

> strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior.

> Additionally, " no consistent association " does not deny " association "

> in any number of instances.

No the two were not contradictory. One indicated low testosterone and

low estrogen levels in the homosexual sheep and the other indicated

high in utero testosterone exposure, not high testosterone levels.

These are two different things. Both of them contradict the

estrogen-->homosexuality concept. The review was saying, in the

abstract, that the hormone theories that had come up had been more or

less shot down by the research. Like I explicitly said, I have no

idea if the review was accurate. This doesn't by any means settle the

issue. It should just be enough to challege the assumption that it is

obvious that high estrogen and homosexuality would be related.

> Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male

> homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong. Heh.

LOL.

> Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth discussing

> unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the evidence

> that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and

> sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality(in

> cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe some

> boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the

> streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened. Who can

> say?

I'd be interested in hearing more about Pottenger's experiments. I

haven't actually read his book. Does he uncover evidence about

estrogen levels or phytoestrogens? I was under the impression he was

working with malnutrition especially of heat-labile nutrients, which

seems quite different. Please share more.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

,

Im going to go through my book of Pottengers cats

tomorrow and take out the parts where he talks about

typical and atypical sexual/gender behavior and

physical representation in the book.

I do remember him talking about both sexes ( in humans

and cats ) comming to a point of degeneration where

they were almost physically neutral (women with narrow

hips and men obtaining feminine characteristics ).

He noted this in cats i believe. Its been a while

since i have read it.

Till tomorrow then.

-Ishtar

> > >Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> > >increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> > >homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-

based

> > >association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?

>>

>

> > You mean " actually involved " in sexual *identification*? Are you

> > kidding? Hormones and sexuality connected. Absurd, of course!

>

> What is absurd is that there are over 350 studies on the

relationship

> between hormones and sexuality indexed for PubMed and that rather

than

> look into it and see if there is any established connection for a

> hormonal cause for homosexuality, those who advocate this position

> simply refuse to look for any of it and nevertheless continue to

> appeal to popular prejudice about hormones and popular prejudice

about

> sexuality such as estrogen's association with women and therefore

> femininity, and male homosexuality's association with femininity.

>

> This is not science, but appeals to intuitive concepts that are in

> some ways not even correct. Estrogen is essential for bone-building

> in men and women, but no one thinks that homosexuality must be

caused

> by estrogen because homosexuals have such strong bones. But it is

> very easy to allude to the common perception that estrogen is a

> woman's hormone and that women are feminine and that gay men are

> either feminine or woman-like.

>

> > No one's exploiting young Masterjohn, only exploring.(Forgive me,

I

> > assume you are very, very young. You may be quite old in fact.)

> > It's a discussion an exploration, not an Inquisition.

It's an

> > academic question in that we are discussing a theoretical

connection

> > observed by a scientist,you know, like happens in an academic

> > environment, one with no lab.

>

> No, it isn't like a scientific discussion because it keeps

persisting

> without any attempt to look at the evidence that is already there.

I

> provided a random sample of studies on homosexuality and hormones on

> the other list we had this discussion on that all refuted the notion

> of high estrogen causing homosexuality so I would think that it

would

> be the turn of the folks taking the opposite position to find some

> supportive research.

>

> Obviously you would be completely justified in presenting the

> hypothesis if it hadn't already been studied; however, since there

are

> hundreds of studies on the issue it behooves one purporting to

engage

> in an acadmemic discussion to do the acadmic thing and look at the

> research that's out there.

>

> To do so isn't to wage an inquisition. It's to follow the normal

> process of logical reasoning.

>

> I'm quite happy to look at some evidence that estrogen is causing

> homosexuality, but I think it's quite anti-scientific for folks to

> keep repeating that it is probably true because it is so obvious

> rather than to look at whether the existing research might support

or

> refute the notion.

>

> > Try to keep in mind that we are discussing *cats* not anyone

close to

> > you or perhaps you, so its not personal.

>

> I don't have any personal issue at all with homosexuality. If

> Pottenger observed homosexuality I think that's interesting and I'd

> like to see a good description of it and I'd like to see if it could

> be replicated by other researchers. I don't, however, take

> Pottenger's assumptions about what cats do in the wild to have any

> validity unless someone can explain what type of experience

Pottenger

> had examining animals in the wild and convince me that this

statement

> was something other than assumptions about what wild animals do due

to

> assumptions about what is and isn't natural.

>

> I do not object to the idea that wild animals do not exhibit

> homosexuality. I have no idea whether they do. I found a study on

> sheep where homosexual sheep were identified, but perhaps those

> particular sheep were very fond of clover. I have no idea.

>

> > Anyway, i was just defending Ishtr's right to raise the question.

>

> Did someone question it?

>

> >We

> > all know you're thorough, but should your self-admitted " very

quick "

> > research on the subject have a chilling effect on those who would

like

> > to explore a possibility, one based upon empirical evidence of a

> > respected scientist, I might add? About cats? Gay cat's rights

> > already? It's a bit soon, I venture.

>

> I think I've been extremely clear that I did a very, very quick and

> very random look at the three most recent results that came up,

every

> single one of which refuted the high estrogen--> homosexuality

theory.

> I'm very, very open to the possibility that there is evidence that

> supports this theory, but I would think that if there is, someone

> advocating the position should find some of it.

>

> This is different than what Ishtar was saying. Ishtar was talking

> about nutrient deficiencies, I thought, and I offered the thought

that

> it was plausible that nutrient deficiencies could be a signal for

> overpopulation, since someone else mentioned a study indicating

> overpopulation caused homosexuality in rats.

>

> I have no problem with anyone offering either theory. I only

> responded negatively to the phytoestrogen theory because the last

time

> we had this discussion it was left where I was the only one who had

> looked for any evidence on the matter and found evidence refuting it

> and pointed everyone to this gold mine of >350 studies where they

> could look for something that could support it but the discussion

> seems to be stuck in the very same spot.

>

> > Oh well then, the issue's settled. Go home folks...nothing more

to see

> > here.

>

> I didn't say I settled the issue by any means.

>

> > Since your search was " very quick " then I would hardly call it

> > conclusive and a reason to end the discussion if hard evidence

cant be

> > provided. We're not all scientists, although that does give you a

> > decided advantage... well, somewhat. Sometimes, all that lab work

can

> > really limit the ability to think outside the litter box.

>

> In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a

laboratory.

>

> > For example, your second example contradicts your third and only

> > strengthens the argument that hormones affect sexual behavior.

> > Additionally, " no consistent association " does not

deny " association "

> > in any number of instances.

>

> No the two were not contradictory. One indicated low testosterone

and

> low estrogen levels in the homosexual sheep and the other indicated

> high in utero testosterone exposure, not high testosterone levels.

> These are two different things. Both of them contradict the

> estrogen-->homosexuality concept. The review was saying, in the

> abstract, that the hormone theories that had come up had been more

or

> less shot down by the research. Like I explicitly said, I have no

> idea if the review was accurate. This doesn't by any means settle

the

> issue. It should just be enough to challege the assumption that it

is

> obvious that high estrogen and homosexuality would be related.

>

> > Plus, Im not touching (no pun intended) any findings about male

> > homosexuality based upon a " finger length " test. It's just wrong.

Heh.

>

> LOL.

>

> > Only evidence I have is what Pottenger reveals. Seems worth

discussing

> > unless you write him off as a quack. I would love to see the

evidence

> > that says there is no correlation of any type between hormones and

> > sexual behavior - but I suppose you wish to dissect homosexuality

(in

> > cats, again) from the actual desire for the act? I dunno. Maybe

some

> > boy cats have bad eyesight, or other boy cats are tired of the

> > streets,or some boy cats are more progressive and enlightened.

Who can

> > say?

>

> I'd be interested in hearing more about Pottenger's experiments. I

> haven't actually read his book. Does he uncover evidence about

> estrogen levels or phytoestrogens? I was under the impression he

was

> working with malnutrition especially of heat-labile nutrients, which

> seems quite different. Please share more.

>

> Chris

>

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm. Ancient

Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm

These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too

Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

Membeers of many primitive groups exhibit homosexuality at different

points in their lives. They are not eating anywhere nearly as

degenerate a diet as many heterosexuals in our society.

>

>

> If you have ever read Pottengers cats you will

> know that animals fed optimal diets exibit typical

> sexual characteristics and behavior.

>

> Pottenger noted the more degenerated the cats became

> their sexual behavior became unnatural.

>

> Anyone have any thoughts on this?

>

>

>

> ishtr

>

[Guest guest]

I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of

theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would

receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be

harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that

handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any

media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may

possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were

one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services -

those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of

their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to

keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction.

>

ALOT

[Guest guest]

On 2/14/07, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of

> theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would

> receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be

> harrassed for looking into it.

I know a few others have made sarcastic comments, but if you're

referring to anything I might have said, the sole extent of my

" harassing " of Jane for the comments on hormones was to say that there

are over 350 peer-reviewed studies on the subject, some published in

journals with names like " The Journal of Homosexuality. " I have no

doubt that the subject is more politically charged than many others

but I do not understand why anyone would speak as if there was no

study of the subject when there are in fact hundreds of studies.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Ishtar,

> Im going to go through my book of Pottengers cats

> tomorrow and take out the parts where he talks about

> typical and atypical sexual/gender behavior and

> physical representation in the book.

Allright cool. I should have read the book myself, but just have

never gotten around to it.

> I do remember him talking about both sexes ( in humans

> and cats ) comming to a point of degeneration where

> they were almost physically neutral (women with narrow

> hips and men obtaining feminine characteristics ).

> He noted this in cats i believe. Its been a while

> since i have read it.

That's quite a different phenomenon from homoesexuality. It could be

genetic disorders from malnutrition-induced errors in the division of

reproductive cells, as that sounds pretty similar to some such

disorders in humans.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm.

> Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm

> These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too

Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might

differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from

animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between

sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female

animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile,

whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized

sexuality.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

On 2/14/07, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might

> differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from

> animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between

> sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female

> animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile,

> whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized

> sexuality.

After Nila's comments, maybe I just think this because I don't have any pets.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

I thought this was supposed to be a 'scientific' discussion, but some of these

replies have taken the cream for opinions. I wonder why we dont just all jump in

biting and aiming for the jugular? aswell as adding our personal fantasies while

we are at it.

Sita

Nila <dharmaworker@...> wrote: Well,

since you can offer your view that homosexuality is a disorder possibly caused

by malnutrition, I feel it's necessary to offer my own conclusions on this

subject.

Hermaphrodites and transgendered and homosexual individuals are the physical

manifestation of a stage of evolution toward what we truly are at the soul

level...both male and female at the same time. Angels are hermaphrodites,

neither male nor female exclusively. Gender-blending is the beginning of the

end of duality and a sign of higher levels of evolution and enlightenment.

Higher Power consists of both masculine and feminine energy, and as we

spiritually evolve, we get closer and closer to that, and find that we are

attracted to another's soul energy, not their plumbing. Just my opinion.

And Pottenger simply didn't know about the wild animal kingdom, as few people

did back in a day when we couldn't observe them with hidden cameras and mics

like we now get such a kick out of on Meerkat Manor. Now we know that without a

doubt, homosexual behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom in various ways.

And pottenger didn't really know cats very well if he didn't know their

proclivity for spending long, lazy afternoons having oral sex with members of

their own gender.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

[Guest guest]

Yes I agree human sexuality does differ from animal sexuality

Interestingly though Bonobo apes which are our nearest relatives practice all

types of sexuality including homosexuality

http://dannyreviews.com/h/Bonobo.html

This is an interesting read.

Re: Re: Homosexuality in Primitives

Hi ,

> Some amazonian tribes practice homosexuality before marriage as a norm.

> Ancient Greeks practiced homosexuality as a norm

> These groups have/had a better diet than most modern heterosexuals too

Good points. It would be interesting, though, to see how this might

differ in other animals. Human sexuality is very different from

animal sexuality in some respects, especially the dissociation between

sexuality and reproduction that we have experienced. Many female

animals, for example, will not have sex except when they are fertile,

whereas humans will. And we have also culturized and emotionalized

sexuality.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

WOW! This has become a VERY heated argument. This is my first comment

to this discussion, but I have read most of the comments made by

Ishcar, Jane, and and everyone else. If I'm not mistaken, the

argument is whether nutrition plays a role in homosexual behavior. I

believe nutrition COULD play a role in homosexual behavior but I

believe it goes BEYOND that. I've seen a lot of comments about past

primitives and society's practicing homosexuality. That's a very good

point. Homosexuality is NOT a NEW, MODERN " practice " . In the Bible

(I'm a Christian), the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were practicing

sodomy(homosexual behavior). It has been " practiced " for thousands of

years even when these people were eating " pristine " diets. I don't

believe homosexuals are physically malnourished but SPRITUALLY and

MENTALLY malnourished. And nutrition can play a role in that TO AN

EXTENT. These are some STRONG comments but I'm not trying to do

any " gay bashing " because Christ loves and died for ALL sinners,

including homosexuals. Homosexuality is NOT natural behavior. "

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of

their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served

the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their

women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,

burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that

which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of

their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain

God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do

those things which are not convenient. " Romans 1: 24-28

[Guest guest]

haecklers/ishtar, list:

Interesting about the PR firm. There's big money behind the movement

for acceptability. There is another firm Steptoe Assoc. which keeps tax free

lawyers on staff to represent LBGTs (for free) if the case can serve the cause.

They are big contributors to the Oates/Schrum Awards, D-Senator Kennedy, Mass.

being a winner and poster child, along with the NEA (National Education

Admin, not government!), which gets the Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender (LBGT)

acceptability info into second grade public classrooms with taxpayer money. If

such information was the intent of the original post, it serves both sides

equaly.

However, back to the subject..... I would like to see constructive

input on the list concerning the original post regarding diet which might

influence body chemistry, metabolism and or hormone levels, as well as

corrective

diets which might enhance the natural act of procreation resulting in normal

children who are capable of becoming parents themselves. I fail to see the point

of homosexuals responding negatively, as their personal choice in the act of

sex will not result in children.

Childbirth/procreation,being sacred, should not become confused with or

blocked by the subject of behaviour that is not the norm by the overwhelming

majority of humans when the original question was about dietary practices

affecting

our offspring. I'm amazed how quickly the subject of diet affecting an unborn

child's sexual characteristics could cause such a heterophobic and

narcissistic outburst. After all, normal and natural sex is how we all got here

to begin

with and is how the human race will survive into the future.

Should homosexuals on this list choose to share nutritional information they

have, I welcome it. I do not enjoy filibusters and side track posts which

obscure the subject and unfairly accuse and attack the poster. C R

In a message dated 2/14/2007 3:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,

lovely.ishtar@... writes:

> Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group

> isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically.

> Aparently there are questions here that are

> not allowed to be raised.

>

> I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully

> i might add, but again the question is obviously

> not allowed. And questions that are not allowed

> to be asked or researched will never be answered.

>

> Sexuality should be researched and studied imo.

>

> Oh and for the record,

>

> i dont apreciate having a question of mine that

> had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and

> then turned back at me to call me a bigot.

>

> very nice people, the lot of you.

>

> -Lovely

In a message dated 2/14/2007 7:23:37 AM Central Standard Time,

haecklers@... writes:

> I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of

> theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would

> receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be

> harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that

> handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any

> media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may

> possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were

> one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services -

> those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of

> their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to

> keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kilroy, as im going through my pottengers cats,

A resounding-Yes! this was a sign of degeneration in the females!

They became more masculine, more violent , and actually dangerous

to be around. The males became feminine, and docile.

This is going to take a while but im going to type out

anything i find of interest, i wont be able to until

later t hough.

ishtar

> Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about

for some time.

> Can too much estrogen make females more masculine?

> Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming

daily, from soy, from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God knows

what they put in our meat, it sure seems to me, as a woman of almost

47 years that women are getting more agressive and men are almost

getting feminine

> I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who are

speeding and driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday

driversare men. I see more women driving and men in the passenger

seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women are getting much more in

your face and lacking what used to be considered the normal social

graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread

winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier

40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would

have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social,

things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they

see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a

shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm

just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones

are doing to both the males and females and if there is any

correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will

be like 50 years from now.

> Lorie

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group

isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically.

Aparently there are questions here that are

not allowed to be raised.

I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully

i might add, but again the question is obviously

not allowed. And questions that are not allowed

to be asked or researched will never be answered.

Sexuality should be researched and studied imo.

Oh and for the record,

i dont apreciate having a question of mine that

had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and

then turned back at me to call me a bigot.

very nice people, the lot of you.

-Lovely

----------------------o

> Kilroy, as im going through my pottengers cats,

>

>

> A resounding-Yes! this was a sign of degeneration in the females!

> They became more masculine, more violent , and actually dangerous

> to be around. The males became feminine, and docile.

>

> This is going to take a while but im going to type out

> anything i find of interest, i wont be able to until

> later t hough.

>

>

> ishtar

> > Kind of off the subject but something I have been wondering about

> for some time.

> > Can too much estrogen make females more masculine?

> > Reading about how much estrogen type compounds we are consuming

> daily, from soy, from plastics, from pesticides, dairy, and God

knows

> what they put in our meat, it sure seems to me, as a woman of

almost

> 47 years that women are getting more agressive and men are almost

> getting feminine

> > I have noticed over the last 4 or 5 years that most drivers who

are

> speeding and driving reckless are young women. Most Sunday

> driversare men. I see more women driving and men in the

passenger

> seat, which wasn't seen in my time. Women are getting much more in

> your face and lacking what used to be considered the normal social

> graces, whereas men, who used to take pride in being the bread

> winners are now happy to live at home with thier parents till thier

> 40's or longer or sponge off thier girlfriends. Things that would

> have not been seen 30 years ago. Some of this I'm sure is social,

> things that are being taught in school, style changes, things they

> see on tv, etc. But I can't believe in my time I have seen such a

> shift, plus men preening themselves, almost like women. Maybe I'm

> just an ancient relic but I have to wonder what all these hormones

> are doing to both the males and females and if there is any

> correlation. And if so I wonder what the young men and women will

> be like 50 years from now.

> > Lorie

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

wacko alert

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: craicker@...

> haecklers/ishtar, list:

> Interesting about the PR firm. There's big money behind the movement

> for acceptability. There is another firm Steptoe Assoc. which keeps tax free

> lawyers on staff to represent LBGTs (for free) if the case can serve the

cause.

> They are big contributors to the Oates/Schrum Awards, D-Senator Kennedy, Mass.

> being a winner and poster child, along with the NEA (National Education

> Admin, not government!), which gets the Lesbian Bisexual Gay Transgender

(LBGT)

> acceptability info into second grade public classrooms with taxpayer money. If

> such information was the intent of the original post, it serves both sides

> equaly.

> However, back to the subject..... I would like to see constructive

> input on the list concerning the original post regarding diet which might

> influence body chemistry, metabolism and or hormone levels, as well as

> corrective

> diets which might enhance the natural act of procreation resulting in normal

> children who are capable of becoming parents themselves. I fail to see the

point

> of homosexuals responding negatively, as their personal choice in the act of

> sex will not result in children.

>

> Childbirth/procreation,being sacred, should not become confused with or

> blocked by the subject of behaviour that is not the norm by the overwhelming

> majority of humans when the original question was about dietary practices

> affecting

> our offspring. I'm amazed how quickly the subject of diet affecting an unborn

> child's sexual characteristics could cause such a heterophobic and

> narcissistic outburst. After all, normal and natural sex is how we all got

here

> to begin

> with and is how the human race will survive into the future.

>

> Should homosexuals on this list choose to share nutritional information they

> have, I welcome it. I do not enjoy filibusters and side track posts which

> obscure the subject and unfairly accuse and attack the poster. C R

> In a message dated 2/14/2007 3:46:13 PM Central Standard Time,

> lovely.ishtar@... writes:

>

>

> > Actually, maybe...nevermind. Obviously this group

> > isnt an open forum to discuss things scientifically.

> > Aparently there are questions here that are

> > not allowed to be raised.

> >

> > I feel i worded the questoin quite respectfully

> > i might add, but again the question is obviously

> > not allowed. And questions that are not allowed

> > to be asked or researched will never be answered.

> >

> > Sexuality should be researched and studied imo.

> >

> > Oh and for the record,

> >

> > i dont apreciate having a question of mine that

> > had no malice behind it attacked , twisted and

> > then turned back at me to call me a bigot.

> >

> > very nice people, the lot of you.

> >

> > -Lovely

>

>

>

> In a message dated 2/14/2007 7:23:37 AM Central Standard Time,

> haecklers@... writes:

>

>

> > I think a main problem of looking for studies that prove any sort of

> > theory about the causes of homosexuality are that the scientist would

> > receive the same treatment Ishtar and Jane have, that is they would be

> > harrassed for looking into it. Did you know there is a PR firm that

> > handles issues of homosexuality and writes threatening letters to any

> > media that comes out with anything about homosexuality that may

> > possibly be damaging to the interests of the gay community? They were

> > one of the examples I read when I was looking up clipping services -

> > those businesses whose job it is to search all media for any mention of

> > their client's interests whether it be business or other, mainly to

> > keep anything negative from appearing without an apology and retraction.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

you asked for some research on the possible effects of

estrogen as a possible contributor to homosexuality. After the

response I received from you for just suggesting that we allow

research on this subject to be presented on the other board that this

came up on, I wanted to stay out of this one, since it was going the

same way with people attacking those who dare suggest we review the

possibilities as " bigots " (I acknowledge that was not from you). Here

goes anyway:

It is interesting that we can look into all other sorts of effects

from the food and chemicals we consume in our lives, including weight

(a proven prejudice that results in lack of employment, lower

earnings, social scorn, name-calling, etc. for those that just appear

to be out of the norm-and there is no way to " hide " it- size is the

first thing anyone sees and many prejudice people create an opinion

with out any background information, no matter what the cause, at

first sight), and every other area of our Human existence, but this

one.

Does it ever occur to those upset by the very suggestion we consider

this question, that those who are homosexual, bi-sexual or feel they

have those tendencies, may include any one who has asked these

questions and wants to know for themselves why they feel that way?

These questions may not hold the answers at all, we may eliminate

them as even the slightness contributors, but to discourage and even

condemn those who are open-minded enough to even consider the

possibilities only silences information in the same way corporations

try to silence the effects of the chemicals they are eschewing into

the environment. If the corporations can keep us from asking the

questions, then there will be no reason to do the studies, and we

will never have " one shred of evidence " for any of the harmful

effects people dared to ask about.

About the research, have you read this book?

The Estrogen Effect: How Chemical Pollution Is Threatening Our

Survival (Paperback)

by Deborah Cadbury

" Science journalist Cadbury, here expanding her Emmy-winning Horizon

program " Assault on the Male, " presents evidence that the widespread

use of synthetic chemicals has disrupted our and other animals'

natural hormonal systems, in effect flooding them with megadoses of

estrogenlike substances that " feminize " males and contribute to

breast cancer and myriad other problems. "

http://www.amazon.com/Estrogen-Effect-Chemical-Pollution-

Threatening/dp/031226707X

Here are some other very basic reports of suspected effects from

excess estrogen:

" Controversial Issues

Overview

A variety of chemicals have been demonstrated to have effects on

hormone systems in animals and humans. Some of the adverse effects

observed in animals, and to a lesser extent in humans include:

-Reproductive Effects/Birth Defects

-Cancer

-Low sperm count/Sexual Dysfunction

-Heart Disease

-Cognitive Disorders

*-Sex Reversal*

-Premature puberty

Some of these chemicals are used in plastics, food production and

packaging, paints, pesticides, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals,

detergents, wetting agents, furniture and carpets. Others are

produced as byproducts of pulp and paper production, incineration,

fuel combustion in vehicles, and animal production. There are a

variety of naturally produced phytochemicals in foods including

soybeans, legumes, flax, yams, and clover. Humans and animals also

produce hormones naturally and by taking pharmaceuticals such as

birth control bills and hormone replacement therapy, which can flow

into sewage treatment and drinking water systems "

http://www.eeletter.com/cntrvrsl/index.html

and:

" Environmental Estrogen Endocrine Disruptors

What animal effects have ED's been linked to? (3)

1) Abnormal thyroid function and appearance

2) Decreased fertility

3) Decreased hatching success

4) Demasculinization and feminization in males

5) Defeminization and masculinization in females

6) Decreased offspring survival

7) Altered immune system function

8) Altered behavior "

http://enhs.umn.edu/5200/estrogen/wildlife.html

This is not new news. In high school, we fed estrogen to rosters and

got them to act like hens, and visa-versa.

(I suppose that would not be allowed today! – that was many years

ago) Experiments like this have been going on for many, many

years.

There are thousands of pages of more research. I am not trying to

prove the effect and so do not wish to do a complete research on it,

only to help others open their mind and quit calling people hurt-full

names, just because they dare to question an effect of a drug that is

being pumped into our food supply and the environment. -Unless they

have a financial investment in estrogen, and wish to discourage any

further research?

~Jan

>

> Jane,...

> Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-based

> association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?

>

> When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the

> issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that LOW

> estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high

TESTOSTERONE

> exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans

> judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature

> concluding that no consistent association between hormones and

> homosexuality in humans has been established from the research after

> hundreds of studies.

>

> If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence.

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/13/2007 11:31:44 PM Central Standard Time,

chrismasterjohn@... writes:

> In my seventy years of life I have not once stepped into a laboratory.

>

Seventy! I'm surprised, there have been so many posts referring to your

'young' age.

C R

[Guest guest]

Jan I was trying to figure out what you were trying to say, and

couldn't.

Were these citations in support of a theory that excess estrogen

causes homosexuality?

I don't see how you get from A to B.

I CAN see evidence that excess estrogen leads to feminization of

males, for example. But no evidence where such feminization then

leads to homosexuality.

Also, on the charge of bigotry: the way I heard the exhange on the

list, it was not to stop the talk of science. It was to challenge

the association of " homosexuality " with " unnatural. " That was the

value judgement.

Think of any other distribution on the bell curve for human

attributes. Do we always call the big bump in the middle, " natural, "

and the others, " unnatural " ? No, we call the outliers, rare, or,

minority, or something. It's not always disease or disorder.

If you can talk about sexual preference in a value neutral way, we

can listen better to the science.

Connie

> >

> > Jane,...

> > Then will you please come up with some shred of evidence that

> > increased estrogen or phytoestrogens is actually involved in

> > homosexuality rather than exploiting the intuitive non-science-

based

> > association between estrogen, femininity and male homosexuality?

> >

> > When we discussed this elsewhere I did a very quick search of the

> > issue with the three most recent results in pubmed to find that

LOW

> > estrogen is associated with homosexuality in sheep, high

> TESTOSTERONE

> > exposure in utero is associated with homosexuality in male humans

> > judged by finger length, and a review of the past literature

> > concluding that no consistent association between hormones and

> > homosexuality in humans has been established from the research

after

> > hundreds of studies.

> >

> > If this is academic, make it academic and let's see some evidence.

> >

> > Chris

> > --

> > The Truth About Cholesterol

> > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Ishtar,

Thank you. I was wondering about that. I know in horses, even when gelded some

will elicit more aggressive behaviour. The vets will give them estrogen

injections to calm them down and make them more pliable. I read once estrogen

is what makes women docile. I think that's why when we are young we are so

willing to please and as we get older and our estrogen goes down we don't worry

about peer pressure and take more of an interest in what makes us happy. I

truly wonder if that is when some husbands will dump their wives for a more

submissive wife. That and the feeling of regaining youth. I was listening to

a radio show and over the last few days the guy on there was talking about a

news article that was written about what women really want. And most polled, (I

don't know the age group though), wanted the Cinderella, happily ever after.

They wanted a husband, the white knight so to speak, someone they could count on

and take care of them. The radio host then went on to say that he thinks the

young women of today have been indoctrinated to thinkthat they are just like

men, and shouldn't depend on a man, to have sex as a recreational activity and

not get involved, need a career and to put thier studies and career first. I

started seeing that in the late 70's when I was in high school. A couple women

called in and said that they had all that and were empty inside. It wasn't

until they got married, later in life that they saw what they were missing and

this is the happiest they have ever been.

Then today he had on young women in thier early 20's who don't even want a

boyfriend, they " hook up " as they call it, and if one girl gets into a

relationship thier friends will leave her. They don't have time for anything but

thier schooling and career and want to make a lot of money. They don't have

time for " we " (meaning a relationship with another person).

Compare that to an old article, I think it was in " Good Housekeeping " from the

late 40's of how a woman should have a clean house, have herself made up and

make sure the children are well behaved and dinner is on the table when the

husband came home. Recreational sex back in that time would have made you a

social leper (it did still in the early 70's when I was in school. If we found

out a girl had sex in our high school she was an outcast and the " S " word was

practically tatooed on her.)

So I am wondering if the influence of estrogen compounds on women increased this

movement exponentially. I would appreciate anything you can find and print. I

am just wondering what has caused such a highly increased shift in the last 40

or so years. I know women have always demanded more rights, and that has been

going on back since the suffragetes, but they didn't want to lose thier feminity

back then. I don't know if you are old enough to remember the commercial " I can

bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget your a man,

because I'm a woman. " When I saw that commercial my first thought was, " Lady,

you won't have a life, between working, raising children, cooking and cleaning

house in a 24 hour day, that will leave you about 4 hours to sleep. " I don't

think I was wrong.

Lorie