-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
I Wonder Why...
- Thread starter FollowingHim2
- Start date
Eye-bleach
A bit of free associating....
Jack Donovan has an interesting chapter in his book The Way of Men that compares bonobo and chimpanzee sexuality and society ("The Bonobo Masturbation Society") and draws some interesting conclusions. Check out this link for more information (an excerpt from an article that cites Donovan). If you find the excerpt interesting, click through the excerpt to the complete article by Roger Devlin and let us know what you think.
I think we've touched on this before, but the 'sin' of 'sodomy' is misnamed. Ezekiel says this: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Homosexuality is a symptom; the disease is affluence and the apathy that follows. Check out the article (and Donovan's book) if you're interested in finding out more.
Jack Donovan has an interesting chapter in his book The Way of Men that compares bonobo and chimpanzee sexuality and society ("The Bonobo Masturbation Society") and draws some interesting conclusions. Check out this link for more information (an excerpt from an article that cites Donovan). If you find the excerpt interesting, click through the excerpt to the complete article by Roger Devlin and let us know what you think.
I think we've touched on this before, but the 'sin' of 'sodomy' is misnamed. Ezekiel says this: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy." Homosexuality is a symptom; the disease is affluence and the apathy that follows. Check out the article (and Donovan's book) if you're interested in finding out more.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have never seen this verse! Thank you!
Has anyone else noticed that only men have expressed a dislike of the naked bonobo picture? The women have been conspicuously silent. Maybe there is something in this after all... 
The other useful passage to pay attention to regarding Sodom is:
The sin of Sodom is here paralleled with the sin of the pre-flood fallen angels, who mated with human women to produce the nephilim. Sodom is condemned for also going after "heteros" flesh - different/strange flesh, here meaning going after angels. They are never said to have been condemned for going after "homos" flesh. Whether they did that or not (outside the angel incident), it's not fundamentally what they were judged for.Jude 1:6-7 said:
Last edited:
That is fascinating. Does the OT always refer to cities and nations in the feminine or is this indicative of something about Sodom. Her and her daughters. Makes me wonder if it was a matriarchal nation.
Has anyone else noticed that only men have expressed a dislike of the naked bonobo picture? The women have been conspicuously silent. Maybe there is something in this after all...
I was thinking about this. What is interesting about the studies isn't that women found bonobo sex arousing, but that men didn't. In other examples of inter-species sexual interest I'm aware of the males are also interested.
Although, I cannot say human men are completely uninterested; stories abound relating to sheep. And then there is a Vice report about man-donkey sex in Columbia. Although, I'd tend to suspect that female interest in the equine is probably much greater than male generally speaking.
I think it's pretty simple, or at least, i think i get it and it doesn't register any resistance nor offend any sensibilities.
- women, in general, are more emotional; men, less so.
- women will seek out emotional support when damaged; men less so.
- Women have a higher capacity for dynamic reasoning whereas male reasoning is very static.
- for men, right is right and wrong is wrong;
- for women, well, it depends on the situation....
- Non-religious types explain this as natural selection in which females who were captured in battle and forced to adopt a new mate and way of life would have, overtime, developed psychological adaptivity.
- any form of homo- or bi- proclivities in men is primarily associated with sexual assault/molestation as a child and by a trusted peer or authority figure.
- Once that psychological wiring is set, thru emotional trauma or genetics, it's now static and almost impossible to change
- Same is for homosexual females (lesbian); except is more dynamic and almost instantly changes once the emotional trauma has been dealt with.
- However, bisexual females are actually considered non-irregular in a few studies and find that a large ratio of females admit to willfully having experienced/experimented ranging from early-teen up through college years.
- Invasiveness
- Girl on girl is non-invasive, no parts used "inappropriately", and is very often emotionally sensual
- Guy on guy, is extremely invasive, using parts counter-design and typically rough.
There is a major issue with the underlying data. Due to different anatomy, male and female physical arousal was measured using completely different instruments. Male arousal was measured as penis girth, female as blood flow in the vagina. You can't directly compare the results. The differences could be purely due to instrument sensitivity.
In the study, the female response to ape-sex was only very small, compared to their arousal by human sex.
In other words, both men and women may be slightly physically aroused by ape-sex-videos, but only the female instrument was sensitive enough to actually detect it.
So this entire part of the discussion may be based on misinformation and just misleading everyone.
The clear and interesting part of the study is that men are aroused only by women, while women are aroused by both men and women (in sexual activity) and more aroused by a naked female than a naked male in non-sexual activity. These arousals were large enough to be clearly detected by both instruments, and show a very clear difference that is directly relevan to our understanding of men and women in human relationships.
In the study, the female response to ape-sex was only very small, compared to their arousal by human sex.
In other words, both men and women may be slightly physically aroused by ape-sex-videos, but only the female instrument was sensitive enough to actually detect it.
So this entire part of the discussion may be based on misinformation and just misleading everyone.
The clear and interesting part of the study is that men are aroused only by women, while women are aroused by both men and women (in sexual activity) and more aroused by a naked female than a naked male in non-sexual activity. These arousals were large enough to be clearly detected by both instruments, and show a very clear difference that is directly relevan to our understanding of men and women in human relationships.
Since my husband doesn't use social media too often, I will put his quote that he told me a long time ago about the difference in men and women. He said, 'God made women beautiful. It is no wonder men and women both find other women attractive. However, if a man doesn't find any women attractive and want to be with them they are straight up gay.' I don't think my husband believes that a man can be bi-sexual the way a women can be? I think?