Gay gene

[Moontanman]

They genetically engineered the aids virus to fight cancer.

 

 

What? What does this have to do with a "gay gene" and can you substantiate such outrageous claim?

[Manfromzurich]

23andme is doing a Genome wide assosiation study for homosexuality(male and female) and trnssexuality! What a luck! What a luck! What a LUCK!

 

Genome wise asociations studies are strong methods to find the genes, which are ''guilty'' for some diseases or traits!

 

So I know that we will know in2,3 or 4 years which genes in homosexuals are mutated. By the way we will find out, how the biological substrate sexual orientation is built!

 

I have this diseases called homosexuality! I am not happy about it! Anyway in 2015 I will do a full genome sequencing, also called a individual genome sequencing by the company Illumina Inc.. THis costs for me a lot of money!

 

The brain is a sexual organ! the masculinisation and sexual dofferentation of the brain is done by genes and hormons. Sexual identification, sexual orientation and sexual behavior are fully genetically and hormonal controlled! This has nothing to do with learning!

 

Now we know that sexual orientation is a biological sustrate which requires CORRECT coded genes. If in male one of this important genes has a mutations, the brain doesn't masculinize correctly!

 

There is a nucleus in the hypothalamus called Inah3 or SND-POA.

 

 

Few weaks ago a company called Decode genetics founded out, that children have until 50 new mutations(SNPs) in their DNA which the parents don't have!

 

We I have done the individual genome sequenicng, shall I you say where in my DNA the error is?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[dmaiski]

simply put being homosexual has been shown in something like 400 different species, and probably a lot more while we weren’t looking, so looking for the gay gene is wrong, you should be looking for the straight gene, or better yet a psychologist.

 

behaviour is dictated by chemical interactions in the brain, so at a genetic level it is possible to predispose an individual to particular reactions, to for example pheromones of the same sex, or even their body shape, thus making said individual more inclined to liking certain genders, but this can just as easily be achieved or counteracted by learned experience, mostly during the developmental stages early in life.

 

the fun thing about this is that people learn in not so straight forward ways, and do so even before they have been born and in early childhood, these associations form quite quickly and the results are fairly permanent

 

another issue is all these allegedly straight people, they haven’t tried being gay, or even bi have they. this is like saying you don’t like broccoli cause its green before ever taking a bite, you might discover you like it if you give it a good go without any prejudice.

well that just based on my experience and what i know of genetics, developmental biology, human psychology, learning patterns, and some zoology thrown in for good measure

 

[Manfromzurich]

@dmaiski

 

We will see when the GWAS of homosexuality will be finished and published! I am very sure, that we will see that there are inddeed affected. And additionally I wil sequence my DNA, so I can analyze my DNA!

 

Dmaiski I will prove you in few years that I am right with my point and you are wrong!

 

 

Genes are construced to have offsprings. Homosexuals have mutation in genes which is needed for the brain masculinisation!

Edited September 3, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[dmaiski]

ight this is tiring

 

what you need to prove heritability is large scale separation studies and twin studies(especially with behavioural traits such as being homosexual)

(this means you take 2 twins at birth away from their gay parents that probably adopted them or had IVF(hmmm now this seems kind of odd) to another country and raise them there in isolation from homosexuals)

 

or you need to demonstrate that it is actually a biochemical process(preferably by showing it is reversible via inhibition or promotion of said biochemical process)

 

then you can point and say its really genetic

 

or haven’t you ever picked up bad habits from your parents such as their annoying habit to stuff shelves full of clutter or GOD FORBID and accent...

yep all things considered accents must be genetic!

and contagious...

i can make a heritability studies to prove it! look my grandpa had it my father had it i have it!

 

 

 

 

in otherwords hetrosequality is really hard to prove to be genetic, at least with any certainty

 

but feel free to preform the test and tell chilcren they have the GAY GENE( this will amuse me to no end when they do turn out to be gay or bi just cause you told them they have to be)

 

 

[jp255]

what you need to prove heritability is large scale separation studies and twin studies(especially with behavioural traits such as being homosexual)

(this means you take 2 twins at birth away from their gay parents that probably adopted them or had IVF(hmmm now this seems kind of odd) to another country and raise them there in isolation from homosexuals)

 

 

And how many heritability studies can get there hands on large scale separation study data? the answer is of course, not many. Which is why you'll find the most common way of trying to determine heritability (using twin studies) is by correlation between MZ and DZ twins (unseparated, since separated twins are too rare), the heritability is then calculated by doubling the difference of MZDZ correlation.

 

There have been heritability estimates of homosexuality anyway. I can't remember the exact value, but 30-60% region sticks out in my memory. Anyway the important thing is it is not 100%, so the usefulness of a homosexality GWAS shouldn't be overexaggerated. There are environmental contributions.

 

I believe most GWAS are inherently flawed in that they assume the genetic loci work alone and therefore assume an addivitive model, ignoring potential epistatic or genetic interactions. Identifying potential epistatic interactions for each loci found to be associated is difficult, so additive models are assumed. This creates phantom heritability, if associated loci are incorrectly assumed to have additive effects. Also, GWAS themselves are not done on all populations so you should take care when using data/conclusions from GWAS and then exdending those conclusions to other populations.

 

Referring to "the gay gene" as the causative agent of homosexuality is inappropriate. This is an absurd assumption! justify yourself or change your wording.

[dmaiski]

Referring to "the gay gene" as the causative agent of homosexuality is inappropriate. This is an absurd assumption! justify yourself or change your wording.

 

 

what i was saying in a very sarcastic manner is that any studies showing heritability of a PERSONALITY TRAIT must be a separation study, otherwise the data from it is completely invalid.

 

like for example accents and speech patterns. I'm sure you could show familial inheritance of such things if all your subjects live together, this dose not mean that accents are genetic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

many people think that homosexuality is some form of disorder or disease, this spawns rather narrow-minded approaches to the problem, and really biased results. what it is is a personality trait. yes personality traits can have biological causes, fine examples are, voodoo wasps, testosterone(aggression), and numerous recreational drugs, but this dose not mean that all personality traits is genetic.(i know those are rather extreme examples and only 1 of those it genetic in origin)

 

 

[jp255]

You are not the only one that has referred to "the gay gene" anyway, just look at the thread title .

 

Not neccessarily. You raise a good point about accents/speech patterns being mistaken as heritable amongst families. However this problem doesn not occur in MZ DZ twin studies because the accents/speech pattern would be perfectly correlated in both MZ and DZ twins (just assuming for arguments sake), so the heritability would be 0 as the difference of correlation is 0 between MZDZ twins. This problem would occur if only MZ twins were studied, as any cultural/environmental traits would appear to be heritable in unseparated MZ twins. So that argument doesn't really hold, the heritability for homosexuality was done by MZDZ twin studies and found to be 30-60% ish.

 

MZDZ twin studies are the next best alternative to the separated MZ twin approach for correcting for shared environment issues, and has to be used due to the rarity of separated MZ twins.

[dmaiski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

 

illinois Percentage of State Population homosequal 3.8%

 

A genetic study of male sexual orientation

 

Homosexual male probands with monozygotic cotwins, dizygotic cotwins, or adoptive brothers were recruited using homophile publications. Sexual orientation of relatives was assessed either by asking relatives directly, or when this was impossible, asking the probands. Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins, and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual. Heritabilities were substantial under a wide range of assumptions about the population base rate of homosexuality and ascertainment bias.

 

 

 

 

the point I'm making here is that 11% of the adoptive brothers were homosexual in this sample, 3x the normal value for the population.(and this study was from 91 when attitudes to gays were worse then they are now)

i may be wrong but this appears to show a relationship which is more mental then genetic.

 

the higher rates of MZ and DZ twins can be attributed to how close the relationship between the pairs(after all if your veritable clone appears to like men why shouldn’t you give it a shot)

 

the Xq28 locus though dose seem to suggest that there may be some genetic link, though i have not seen any data showing whether this data extends to straight men at all.

also it has been disputed by other studies done in Canada http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10213693

 

Koch's postulates are really useful things if you apply them to genetics

you need to:

1. isolate the causative agent (gene)

2. show its non existent in a normal individual (the wilds type)

3. show that if its inserted into a normal individual they will develop the trait (the wonders of lab rats)

 

 

[Manfromzurich]

And why I get insulted by other peolple in the public, why said, I looked as a faggot(face).

 

 

Look these videos and rethink your opinion:

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2pyXPtWdM

 

 

There a mutations in genes(or nearly these genes) which are needed for the brain masculinisation!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7tXZbvk7hQ

[jp255]

the point I'm making here is that 11% of the adoptive brothers were homosexual in this sample, 3x the normal value for the population.(and this study was from 91 when attitudes to gays were worse then they are now)

i may be wrong but this appears to show a relationship which is more mental then genetic.

 

Why are you just guessing? you can determine the amount the environment contributes, which is what your theory is. 100 - ((52-22)x2). This study has quite a low sample size however. It still does show a genetic contribution to homosexuality though.

 

the higher rates of MZ and DZ twins can be attributed to how close the relationship between the pairs(after all if your veritable clone appears to like men why shouldn’t you give it a shot)

 

You are right, that is a possibility. You think that sharing 100% of your genes would create such a powerful feeling of obligation though? DZ twins share 50% on average, the difference between 50% and 100% is enough to cause someone to feel obliged to try out homosexual behaviour such that 17 more people try it out in the MZ group?

 

I would agree with you about the environmental factors contributing to homosexuality, but I don't think that sharing 100% of your genes with another person will make you do everything that he/she does.

 

I suppose you have pointed out a possibility which casts doubt over whether or not this heritability observed is really genetic. That instead the heritability of homosexuality + peoples opinion on determinism is being assessed.

[dmaiski]

ugh... brain masculinisation

 

 

look if your talking about brain masculinisation or lack there of, its testosterone receptors, Dihydrotestosterone receptors, and a few other androgen receptors that aren’t that major.

 

if you have a malfunction in these yes your brain will "feminize" so will everything else... its a disease called AIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_Insensitivity_Syndrome

simply put they would not look like men they would look like women

 

 

"gay" men are generally very proud of being masculine not feminine and actively aim to be so

 

simply put that argument dosen't make any sense whatsoever

 

 

and the relationship between face structure and sexuality, honestly I don’t see any, and I never have

gay men do have similar mannerisms and behaviour patterns(these are usually put on as a show to some extents, as I have met gay men that you really couldn’t tell were gay by how they behaved),

but similar facial structure or any other phenotypic characteristics aren’t shared(except maybe the Y chromosome...)

 

 

[Manfromzurich]

That's wrong! Brains masculinisation, mostly the masculinisation of the hypothalamus, runs by estradiol, coverted from testosteron by CYP19A1(aromatase)! The estradiol activated the ESR1 and ESR2. These recepors activate COX 2 and COX3. These genes produce PEG2. PEG2 anway make faster the chlorid flow in the nerv cells.

 

 

Brain masculinisation means MORE detritic spins than a female brain.

 

 

Trust me I am right and you are wrong!

 

Because was you right, when I see tits I should get a hard dick. Or evenwhen I see a beautiful women, I should get nervous and/or get a hard dick! This is not normal that my brain do not react at this way. That's why I believe there must be a gentic mutation, which changes the biology in my body.

 

 

BTW: I was nerver sexual abused, I had a normal chidlhood, I grew up by a normal familiy, I never wanted to be gay, I never had bad experience with women, in my freetime I played soccer or ot sport games, I never wanted to be a hairdresser,

 

 

I will prove you, that I am right, and that I have INDEED a unfuctional gene, because of a mutation!

 

I have founed this: http://www.otogeneti..._seq_010812.htm

 

I wrote them, if it is possible for me to seqeunce all my exomes, so that I am able to research.

 

 

I am a affected person, I konw what I am speaking of. You are not gayy, so you have no clue. IT is bold of you. Because I don't have it so easy as a heterosexual man.

 

I have enogh suffered under this, and then I must read by that ''there is not genetic determsime for homosexuality''. That is very bold.

Edited September 4, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[dmaiski]

I'm bi actually... (technically i just like whoever i like or find attractive regardless of gender or silly things like that, there's a word for it but i forgot it)

its one of the reasons i see no real basis for genetics in mentality, i chose what mental models i want to use and use them as i will.

 

your response to females is purely mental, its not that your not trying hard enough, your just not thinking of it the right way(at least in my opinion).

i mean if i really wanted to I'm sure i could elicit a sexual response to a brick wall in myself if i found myself so inclined(it basicly equates to something along the lines of auto-hypnosis).(ofcoerce this is invalidated since I'm probably a shizotype, and all the fun mental abilities, disorders, abnormalities, and quirks that come with that)

 

i was also never abused or mistreated in any way

 

also this dosen't account for lesbians, who lack the SRY region on the sex chromosomes and are verry much female brains

 

 

another fun thing... you know who else have large amounts of estodiol women, lack of it dosen't mean you have a female brain it means you have a rather abnormal brain structure

if you lacked aromatase you would have http://en.wikipedia....tase_deficiency there has been no linkage between this and homosexuality found(it has been tested for before look up DuPree 2004.

 

(im not a neuroscientist tho so i could be wrong)

 

 

Edited September 4, 2012 by dmaiski

[iNow]

Trust me I am right and you are wrong!

 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Danth's_Law

 

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

[jp255]

Trust me I am right and you are wrong!

 

Because was you right, when I see tits I should get a hard dick. Or evenwhen I see a beautiful women, I should get nervous and/or get a hard dick! This is not normal that my brain do not react at this way. That's why I believe there must be a gentic mutation, which changes the biology in my body.

 

I will prove you, that I am right, and that I have INDEED a unfuctional gene, because of a mutation!

 

I am a affected person, I konw what I am speaking of

 

 

I am just quoting all of the sentences which are absurd.

 

You are ignoring all the evidence and using your own opinion and your own experiences to justify your ideas about homosexuality. Firstly, believing so strongly that you are gay because you have a genetic mutation and that the genetic mutation = 100% determinism will not ever help. Why do you believe this, even when the evidence does not suggest this? this is the obvious question to ask but even if we assume what you say is true, how can you ever hope to change? Seems to me that you are setting yourself up to be unhappy.

 

As I said before, the heritability is within the region of 30-60%. It is not 100%!!!!!!! Therefore you can not say that a genetic mutation is the cause of your homosexuality, because you do not know for sure. Even if you do have a mutation, you cannot deny the possible influence of the environment either. So do yourself a favour and adopt the correct line of thinking.

 

Just because it feels as though there is not a choice, does not instantly mean that x condition is genetic. How do you know that the environment cannot contribute?

[dmaiski]

If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly.

 

Ahh but you see Mr. Bond, I have won. My squid-men have surrounded all your positions and you have no chance of escape.

Surrender is your only option.

 

--->back to rational discussion<----

 

 

 

I've always wanted to say that, I'm sorry

 

 

what i wanted to show you:

http://www.narth.com...stheregene.html

read it before you continue

its the second result in google for "gay gene"

Edited September 5, 2012 by dmaiski

[Manfromzurich]

And why so many people also say I looked like a fag. Yes it's like you say, I have the mutation and I am unhappy.

 

 

I am very glad that 23andme is doing a GWAS. As soon as this GWAS is made, people like dmasiki will die out.

As a affected person I know for sure that it is genetic caused. And I have a lot of trouble because of this. Very oftenm I get insulted as a faggot, or ''I looked like a faggot. So please don't be foolish and say, there isn't a mutation in my DNA.

Yes I am very unhappy because of this. That's why I want to become a genetican and neuroscientist! I am intersted in biochemistty, too.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[iNow]

Your problem is a psychological issue relating to the acceptance of self. It is not genetic.

[dmaiski]

I would ask what's wrong with being BI... but never mind

 

from what i see you are simply uncomfortable with what you are, and need to have an excuse or reason for it

its a fairly normal response to any kind of affliction or event, http://www.bipolarwo...ticles/art2.htm see someone even wrote about it(though its for bipolar disorder in this incarnation it still works)

 

i would really suggest getting a good psychologist and telling them you have trouble dealing with it

 

(not saying homosexuality is a disease, but being in denial is)

 

edit:

inow has beaten me to the punch due to my being overly verbose

(ill go cry in a corner now)

Edited September 5, 2012 by dmaiski

[Moontanman]

Actually, I'm not aware of any solid evidence that there are gay genes.

 

Incidentally, this argument mainly concerns men; I don't know that women, at the time these evolutionary changes were occurring, had much choice in avoiding pregnancy.

 

 

I'm aware of that article by Steven Pinker, and the subsequent attack on E.O.Wilson's book, which promotes group selection, by Richard Dawkins. I haven't read Wilson's book - though I plan to - so I don't know which variety of group selection he believes in - but I'm a firm believer in a particular version of group selection, myself - though since I'm a layman, don't put too much stock in that. E.O.Wilson is a prominent biologist, so it's still an open question, although I think most evolution scientists don't accept group selection. Charles Darwin did, however.

 

 

Incidentally, I'm not really arguing that homosexuality provides major reproductive benefits to a family, merely that there are enough potential benefits to balance the associated costs and allow for the maintenance of a genetic basis in the population.

 

 

I'm sure there are. While some people are genetically one extreme or the other there are going to be some in the middle without a predisposition one way or the other. Some choose to go one way or the other and some choose to go both ways. For those in the middle it is more of a choice than a natural disposition.

 

 

Why are you just guessing? you can determine the amount the environment contributes, which is what your theory is. 100 - ((52-22)x2). This study has quite a low sample size however. It still does show a genetic contribution to homosexuality though.

 

That instead the heritability of homosexuality + peoples opinion on determinism is being assessed.

 

 

ugh... brain masculinisation

 

"gay" men are generally very proud of being masculine not feminine and actively aim to be so

 

simply put that argument dosen't make any sense whatsoever

 

 

have met gay men that you really couldn’t tell were gay by how they behaved),

but similar facial structure or any other phenotypic characteristics aren’t shared(except maybe the Y chromosome...)

 

 

 

 

I am a affected person, I konw what I am speaking of. You are not gayy, so you have no clue. IT is bold of you. Because I don't have it so easy as a heterosexual man.

 

I have enogh suffered under this, and then I must read by that ''there is not genetic determsime for homosexuality''. That is very bold.

 

 

Your problem is a psychological issue relating to the acceptance of self. It is not genetic.

 

 

I would ask what's wrong with being BI... but never mind

 

from what i see you are simply uncomfortable with what you are, and need to have an excuse or reason for it

its a fairly normal response to any kind of affliction or event, http://www.bipolarwo...ticles/art2.htm see someone even wrote about it(though its for bipolar disorder in this incarnation it still works)

 

i would really suggest getting a good psychologist and telling them you have trouble dealing with it

 

(not saying homosexuality is a disease, but being in denial is)

 

edit:

inow has beaten me to the punch due to my being overly verbose

(ill go cry in a corner now)

 

 

I multi quoted this not to debate each of the quotes but to show how close and how far off the mark everyone is but still no brass ring...

 

There is a huge elephant in the room, people keep toying with the idea of choice, not a choice, genetic, not genetic, various ways homosexuality can or could be supported by genetics and how it cannot be supported thusly.

 

One of the biggest elephants in the room is our modern definition of sexuality, I'm not talking about a scientific definition but a social definition.

 

We are assuming that the group has always defined homosexuality in the way we do and that homosexuality is somehow an impediment to reproduction....

 

I have my doubts that homosexuality has always been defined as an all or nothing, on off, type of behavior. In fact I am going to assert that homosexual behavior is part of the behaviors of all humans and in the past this was generally assumed to be true.

 

A few hunters off on a long hunt get horny and decide to fellate each other around the camp fire after along hard hunt... homosexuals or just horny guys helping each other out?

 

The dominant male requires that all the males he dominates submit to him sexually when females are not available.... or even when they are... homosexual or just a dominant male getting what is perceived by the group as normal behavior?

 

Females left behind by the males in the cave, alone, lonely, so they have sex with each other while their mates are away... homosexual? Females that have male mates but also have occasional female lovers... homosexual?

 

Men and women in prison, isolated far away from any opposite sexual contact, so they have same sex lovers... homosexual or just sexual?

 

Bonobo Chimps seem to have a handle on the sexuality thing, everyone does everyone else at some point. We humans seem to want to assume or assert that any sexual contact with someone of the same sex labels you as homosexual or even if that is your preferred sexual encounter it somehow magically prevents you from having sex with someone from the opposite sex.

 

I think the main disconnect here is the assumption that heterosexual and homosexual are opposites of each other when in fact they are not. Sexuality comes in many flavors, a spectrum, a rainbow if you will. It's mainly our society that attempts to isolate people whose desires for the same sex are known but on the down low the number is much higher and if homosexuality wasn't demonized by religion I doubt we would see it quite a polarizing behavior as we do now...

 

On the whole the "is it genetic and it is not genetic" there is also the argument that a tendency toward preferring same sex is hormonal and occurred inside the womb due to the fetus being exposed to varying amounts of the mothers hormones during gestation. This could also be a big part of the genetics influence as well, certain genes when exposed to hormonal imbalances in the womb could cause a trend in the direction of sexual preference after puberty. I don't think it's a purely "I've got the gay gene thing at all"...

[Manfromzurich]

I stay at my postion that it is genetic and I still know that I have a mutation. I am speaking of a single base change called SNP!

 

Few weaks ago, you could read in the newspaper, that decode gentics founded out, the children have until 50 new SNP in their DNA, which the parents haven't. So in this way homosexuality is genetic. New mutation in the DNA of the children, which the parents haven't, make a son gay!

 

 

I am very very sure that I have indeed such a mutation, which is guilty for my homosexuality.

 

 

I mean when I go to you tube and there are an video, where you can see ''hot women or tits'' and I can read comments like oh I must masturbate now or my dick pull over or I get an erection, then I do feel bad, because my brain isn't able to react on this sexual stimulation. And this is a clearly biological difference!!!!!

 

 

I stay on my postion that I have a genetic defect, and in a few year I am able to prove this !!

 

 

 

For me the GWAS on homosexuality is pretty worthy! I looking forwards to see which genes are affected!

Edited September 5, 2012 by Manfromzurich

[Greg H.]

I stay at my postion that it is genetic and I still know that I have a mutation. I am speaking of a single base change called SNP!

 

Few weaks ago, you could read in the newspaper, that decode gentics founded out, the children have until 50 new SNP in their DNA, which the parents haven't. So in this way homosexuality is genetic. New mutation in the DNA of the children, which the parents haven't, make a son gay!

 

 

I am very very sure that I have indeed such a mutation, which is guilty for my homosexuality.

 

I find your use of the term guilty very telling in the post above. You're looking for something you can point to and say "I identify as a homosexual but it's not my fault." This seems to, in turn, imply that homosexuality is something bad that should be shunned or fixed. Is that how you feel about it?

[Moontanman]

I stay at my postion that it is genetic and I still know that I have a mutation. I am speaking of a single base change called SNP!

 

Few weaks ago, you could read in the newspaper, that decode gentics founded out, the children have until 50 new SNP in their DNA, which the parents haven't. So in this way homosexuality is genetic. New mutation in the DNA of the children, which the parents haven't, make a son gay!

 

 

I am very very sure that I have indeed such a mutation, which is guilty for my homosexuality.

 

 

That is a rather narrow view, can you say it would be impossible for you to have sex with a woman? Have you ever had sex with a woman? Asserting that you have a mutation is quite true, we all do, asserting that some random mutation is why you are homosexual would seem to ignore all other people who are homosexual or do you assert that this unique mutation somehow also occurs in other humans randomly? Your assertion that neither or your parents have this gene ignores what we know about genetics, if you had blue eyes and both your parents had brown eyes would you assert you had a mutation or that you had inherited a recessive trait from your parents? I really don't follow your line of reasoning here...

[Manfromzurich]

Look mister Greg H. 23andme wrote they what to know how the biological substrate of sexual orientation is built. Through the GWAS they can see which genes are affected.

 

 

To know which genes are mutated in homosexuals= to know how sexual orientation runs biological

This is in my eyes in big step forwards!

 

 

Correct I am unhappy. I wished to be heterosexual. I need information, that why I am inrterested in the GWAS, and I am also interested to do a genome sequencing.

 

 

I don't have anything against women. I don't believe female bodies are digusting or somewhat.

 

 

IF I am able to have sex with womens? Well the problems is, how I want to have sex with women, when my dick doesn't erects? I do miss the sexual attractivness for women, where is it?? I am missing it.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Manfromzurich