The Couch

Theory: Patriarchy triggers homosexuality?

Do you think this is the best theory you have heard outside of any genetic evidence?
Yes

Xanthos, itchaba
2 33%
No

smokinpristiformis, libertygrl, Nihil Loc, vijay077
4 67%
6 votes

Comments on Theory: Patriarchy triggers homosexuality?

Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#26 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/02/09 - 9:32 PM:

I'm afraid that I feel psychosociology to be a bit of a minefield.

It can be, but it seems this bond betwen mother and baby is a kind of map which gets us through relatively unscathed - as mentioned before, it's difficult to deny the psychosocial profundity of a mother loving children unconditionally. It is a common understanding that father's become more 'loved' later on when social philosophy becomes a consideration for the child. Fathers have had the extra time to be more out and about in the world while the mother was pregnant, breastfeeding, etc., and so they tend to have a more informed perspective on the sociopolitical state of affairs. This is a generalization which is open to debate, of course, but I was just using it as an example of how men often seem to have more to offer a child when it has become older. Sikh traditions, for example, follow such an idea.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 3:02 AM:

This is a generalization which is open to debate, of course, but I was just using it as an example of how men often seem to have more to offer a child when it has become older. Sikh traditions, for example, follow such an idea.


No effort here to degrade your argument/theory, and please forgive the bluntness, but:
It appears to me that this is an rather cheap excuse to avoid having to change diapers. rolling eyessticking out tongue
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 3:50 AM:

Haha laughing
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 10:11 AM:

i think it's a very interesting theory, but i don't quite believe the question in the first place: "what leads to homosexuality?" it was easier to talk about when "love" referred to a list of things that were not considered interdependent: today, sexuality and lust are not considered love, but less than 2000 years ago, eros was a legitimate form of love.

other fallacies arise from defining homosexuality in terms of the "sexual" and not in terms of gender. if a man loves a woman this is love in the contemporary sense of the word, if it a man loves a man then the topic changes immediately to the physical.

if we won't even give it credit by the same standards then it's easy to see how double standards could influence other lines of thinking. if patriarchy triggers homosexuality among men, doesn't it also trigger heterosexuality among women?

in other words, by the same thinking, a matriarchial society should produce lesbians. i think we should go back to how we explain all love: as a product of biology (or spirituality, or both.) homosexuality always existed because love always existed. it's reasonable to assume (though it may or may not be correct) that love of all varieties is one of those traits produced by convergent evolution- it shows up now and again for whatever reason, perhaps as a means of keeping population at levels where we do not eat ourselves into extinction.

the fact that it exists in animals that do not have patriarchal societies (or any society in our sense of the word) ought to suggest that society is not the primary cause.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 10:44 AM:

happycynic,

Thank you for your comments, however I think you may have made two wrong assumptions while reading this thread:

1) That I was talking about male homosexuality exclusively with regards to the whole 'patriarchy causing it' theory (which I wasn't).
2) The close attraction between genders in adult life is a product of humans' reproductive instinct - love comes in to the equation, as does sex, of course, but I have made it clear that the 'epicentre' of love originates from when a person is born and makes a close bond with it's mother. Homosexuality does not exclusively cover sexual attraction; it assumes there will be love there also - something that would possibly not be present if someone was attracted to a blow-up doll or animal.. hmm

Love, in fact, appears to form the background to any productive human interaction, because it involves an agreement; a co-operation which represents the identical cognitive system shared between human individuals. This empathising with another person empathising creates a feed-back loop which tells us that the most important (salient) thing in that moment is this shared cognition - and this seems to generate the feeling of love.

When this process takes place in the intimate sexual domain between loving partners, there are more connections and reflections made than with anyone else - and eventually possibly more than shared between a mother and child - one could say that truly loving partners form the epitome of Love. This is a cliche that has been used for millenia.
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#31 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 11:39 AM:

fair enough. i would argue though. that by using the word "patriarchal" you are inadvertently making this primarily about male homosexuality, at least more about one gender than the other. if you went to pains to outline how a patriarchal society is different than a matriarchal one (other than pertaining to gender) than i simply too you too literally and answered too quickly...

when i think about the "values" of patriarchal society... i think they are less the difference between men and women and more the difference between ruled and not-ruled. patriarchal society may be more totalitarian, but matriarchal society could be.

i don't believe there is a love greater than the love between a woman and child, unless you mean love is greater (more noble?) when it is not a motherly instict... but is the instinct or tendancy to love more noble than motherly instinct is, or is it simply acted on less often?

i still think the question is based on as many cliches as what it addresses, but i can't blame you for asking it. misguided or not, it's still interesting. i agree that love likely exists (biologically) for more than sex. what we call "god" or "love" may be innate, biological or evolved, and spirituality may be the professing of such an instinct in symbolic or metaphorical terms.

it seems perfectly natural (biological) for anyone to love anyone else regardless of gender, and i say that as a man who is inclined towards women. i believe love predates society as biology predates society... if anything i would ask how love ever triggered the fear society has of it.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#32 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/03/09 - 8:43 PM:

You seem not to have read the thread properly;

1) Patriarchy, just because it is male-orientated does not somehow by default mean homosexuality is about males exclusively in this thread. I have been clear about that - you just need to read the posts.
2) I have been clear about what I would consider a matriarchy to be - something very different from a patriarchy - possibly a kind of society the Buddha or Jesus would have wished for.

I suggested that the love between a mother and her child can be eclipsed by the love between two romantic partners if they are willing to be open to the full spectrum of the human condition. This does appear rare in this day and age. Just because they share a deeper cognitive world with one another, their comprehension of love's dynamics, and the practical functionality of that love in their lives, will replace their old conception - hence the inspiration for great works of art, heroic deeds, etc.

You asked a very interesting question: " if anything i would ask how love ever triggered the fear society has of it.".. - I should have time to open this up as a new thread, as it is something which concerns me very deeply.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#33 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/09 - 2:33 AM:

Xanthos wrote:
1) Mother and baby form a very strong bond (google 'Primal Health' for the science on this).
2) Father dominates mother through patriarchical sociopolitical culture.
3) Baby grows up empathising with the dominated mother he/she loves so deeply; feeling all that hurt and suffering, and can't see the sociopolitical climate changing for the better in the future.
4) The now grown and adult offspring doesn't see creating another version of their suffering mother (via a heterosexual relationship in an unchangeable patriarchical system) as a viable or productive option.
5) Adult offspring embrace gayness instead.


Here the baby who becomes homosexual becomes so through an outcome of empathy with the mother. This empathy is here characterized as the result of a negative, violent, dominating, abusive patriarchal figure. This kind of figure does not pass as an all encompassing model for 'patriarchy.' When 'patriarchy' as a term fits into your framework as such it suggests an ad hoc explanation of cause.

I think there must be other triggers of homosexuality in situations where the patriarchal figure is kind, generous and loving father figure.

Suppose the father is absent and so there is no model for scrutinizing the moral behavior of the father via mother (if indeed we can even count this as shaping sexual orientation). Why couldn't the child identify with the mother under a number of different biographical scenarios?

Freud on Homosexuality and the Super-Ego: Some Cross-Cultural Tests1

Abstract of Link wrote:
1) relatively little father-son contact during early childhood increases the probability of homosexuality; (2) under a condition of relatively high father contact, increased sexual attachment to the mother decreases the probability of homosexuality; (3) relatively little father-son contact during early child hood impedes the development of the son's super-ego.

The data from fifty-one societies indicate that hypotheses (1), (2) and (3) are strongly supported...
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/09 - 10:21 AM:

This empathy is here characterized as the result of a negative, violent, dominating, abusive patriarchal figure. This kind of figure does not pass as an all encompassing model for 'patriarchy.' When 'patriarchy' as a term fits into your framework as such it suggests an ad hoc explanation of cause.

The patriarchy isn't necessarily witnessed coming directly from the father as a conscious effort - I was suggesting it was recognised as an authoritative male-induced trait which is identified with the father (I did refer to such a thing previously). How ever gentle the father is, the patriarchy in society; the aggressive advantage it gives males, and the very male sociopolitical concerns it represents, will never be identified with a mother.

I think there must be other triggers of homosexuality in situations where the patriarchal figure is kind, generous and loving father figure.

The father is a male role model, and so represents the male cause of any patriarchy which has harmed the mother - forcing her to behave in whorish ways (to any degree), or forcing her to compete with the other mothers she should be cooperating with, etc. The mother is clearly more of a 'victim' than the father can ever be, and if the father does not seem to be saving the mother (and future 'mothers' - women in general) from the prevailing patriarchy of society; no matter how caring and gentle he is, he will (and thus heterosexuality will) be blamed for her unfortunate circumstances, as he obviously does not have the solution.

Suppose the father is absent and so there is no model for scrutinizing the moral behavior of the father via mother (if indeed we can even count this as shaping sexual orientation).

Lets say the father dies before the child is born; there is even less hope for witnessing heterosexuality 'working' to any degree. The mother is still inflicted with the patriarchy of society, and so it is seen that no man cares for her enough, and it is male interaction (directly or through social infrastructrue) which is causing her suffering - it seems the same lesson is learned; men + women = deep suffering.

Freud on Homosexuality and the Super-Ego: Some Cross-Cultural Tests1

Thank you for posting this, however it predates Michel Odent's work which appears to undermine a lot of Freuds work visavis Mother-baby relationships. All societies are, and have been, patriarchal...and this will mean interference with the mother-baby bond in all 51 of those countries studied - but tha was never looked in to it seems hmm
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#35 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/09 - 12:09 PM:

Xanthos wrote:
All societies are, and have been, patriarchal...


while i think that is necessary to support your theory, it's the very fact that not all societies are patriarchal, unless your very definition of society is "a group or system of people that is patriarchal" that makes me doubt it. i can't imagine you're going to find an social anthropologist anywhere to agree on your premise.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#36 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/04/09 - 9:54 PM:

So what are the alternatives to patriarchy, and can you give some examples/references?
vijay077
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 16
#37 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 3:03 AM:

Somehow i feel you are making it seem homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by troubled families. Neither is their any proof nor it is possible to generalize. Yes there may be homosexuals because of a patriarchal system, however it is not the only reason.

Even among the gays there is a strictly top and similar bottom. how do you explain the psychological cause of these preference?

Even Michael Oden suggests anatomical difference between homo and hetro, which if true, falsifies your 'opinion'. isn't? Freud seems to be close to reality but there are countless homosexuals who are very sure it is nothing psychological about their preferences.

Probably i did not understand what you are hinting at. kindly clarify.
happycynic
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 03, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Comments: 44
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 4:37 PM:

"So what are the alternatives to patriarchy, and can you give some examples/references?"

oh no, i don't know what the best theory is. i know the problems with your theory, but it's possible the best theory hasn't been found yet. ultimately though i think vijay has the right idea... you're treating homosexuality as an aberration, an accident. i don't believe that, which is why i not only reject your answer but the question it's based on.

if homosexuality is simply another part of nature (like love is, and i have no reason to think it isn't.) then your question is not totally nonsensical, but it becomes a lot more difficult to answer, and it becomes a lot more confusing.

as for whether i read the original thread properly or not, i too suspected i missed something. i went back to look, and i think you made too many mistakes framing it. you draw a line between something you call "patriarchy" when matriarchy should fit into your argument but doesn't, you throw out gender, perhaps since you weren't talking about patriarchy but misogyny.

until you put more care into the question you shouldn't expect more of the answers. i participated because i thought it was interesting and amusing, and possibly to learn. if i didn't learn anything it was still amusing, so thank you.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/05/09 - 9:59 PM:

Somehow i feel you are making it seem homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by troubled families.

Not a mental disorder - just a natural reaction. How can it be a disorder? Do you think that if the survival of the species depended on it; homosexuals would not procreate with the opposite sex?

Even among the gays there is a strictly top and similar bottom. how do you explain the psychological cause of these preference?

I am not saying homosexuality will eradicate hierarchies, I am saying it lowers the instance of witnessing a woman (i.e. mother) becoming so deeply hurt by a man.

Even Michael Oden suggests anatomical difference between homo and hetro, which if true, falsifies your 'opinion'. isn't? Freud seems to be close to reality but there are countless homosexuals who are very sure it is nothing psychological about their preferences.

There is no conclusive physiological proof for homosexuality - again, if you can point me to any evidence I am not aware of then that would be great.

There are plenty of people who express a sureness about what they do - it's likely the Taliban are sure about their reasons for burning girls schools.

you're treating homosexuality as an aberration, an accident. i don't believe that, which is why i not only reject your answer but the question it's based on.

Our beliefs are based upon what we have experienced, so it would be interesting to hear what experiences cause you to believe otherwise. I am not saying I am 'right' here, it's just that I consider the theory to be something which could actually be happening. I am all up for hearing counter-arguments - that's why I have posted this thread.

With regards to 'aberrations', we see fluffy handcuffs and whips being sold on the highstreet in Ann Summers - indeed, it's seen as 'adventurous' and even fashionable to use such things, but what is actually going on with all that? How can we say that mainstream sexuality - whether hetero or homo - is free from aberrations anyway? The Chinese men used to get off on the women's bound feet - all mashed up and bent under - they used to consider it erotic. hmm

When we go beyond the procreation process, sexuality's natural and functional role in society becomes a very muddy pool it seems.

you draw a line between something you call "patriarchy" when matriarchy should fit into your argument but doesn't,

Well, we're not all clear about what a matriarchy is - we've covered that already.

you throw out gender, perhaps since you weren't talking about patriarchy but misogyny.

Misogyny can exist, for example, in a workplace where gender equality laws apply and the men's hatred of women can't manifest effectively, but patriarchy is a development from that in the way that such laws are not of much consequence or practicality to women in such a situation, as there will be deeper social infrastructures (possibly rooted in the family) which undermine any consmetic attempts to engender equality.

Maybe a quoting of the dictionary definition of patriarchy would useful:

Patriarchy

1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line ; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy

Thank you all for your interesting replies smiling face
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/09 - 11:01 AM:

i wrote:
in order to firmly establish patriarchy as a cause of homosexuality, we need to be able to see that the prevalence of homosexuality is either non-existent or notably reduced in the absense of patriarchy.

X wrote:
Well, as stated before; I am not looking to firmly establish the theory; I am merely looking to open it up to consideration.

that's fine and good, and i welcome the exploration. however, as a potential route, it's not terribly viable without any means of testing the theory.

X wrote:
I don't think a high population induces a general complacence in us as a species - anyone who has heard about how quickly something like the SARS virus spread will be all too aware of our fragility as biological organisms.

i disagree. i think a high population does actually induce a general complacence. i would assert that most people are not aware of our fragility as biological organisms. awareness of our fragility may increase at an individual level as a result of a car accident or having an uncle die of cancer, but the idea that the entire species could die out at any moment is not something i would say is on most people's minds. the SARS virus killed hundreds of people, infected thousands. if it had killed millions, then perhaps people in general would be alarmed about the threat to our species.

X wrote:
We all know already that living causes homosexuality - you can't have a gay rock or fire, for example; something must be alive to be gay.

do you feel that correlation implies causation?

also, do you feel that everything must have a cause?
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#41 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/09 - 3:20 PM:

in order to firmly establish patriarchy as a cause of homosexuality, we need to be able to see that the prevalence of homosexuality is either non-existent or notably reduced in the absense of patriarchy.


That would be a correlation. Not necesserily a firm establishment of causal relation. smiling face
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#42 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/09 - 10:37 PM:

that's fine and good, and i welcome the exploration. however, as a potential route, it's not terribly viable without any means of testing the theory.

Indeed; and so all one can do is weigh it up according to one's own personal experiences of life, and that is all. If people can recognise the validity of the theory as a possibility (unlike something like flames made of water, for example), then it is still something worth noting it seems.

i disagree. i think a high population does actually induce a general complacence. i would assert that most people are not aware of our fragility as biological organisms. awareness of our fragility may increase at an individual level as a result of a car accident or having an uncle die of cancer, but the idea that the entire species could die out at any moment is not something i would say is on most people's minds. the SARS virus killed hundreds of people, infected thousands. if it had killed millions, then perhaps people in general would be alarmed about the threat to our species.

Well it's not just about the SARS virus is it... we see films like Armageddon, Terminator, Day of the Triphids, etc., etc. - it seems we're being constantly bombarded with warnings as to our fragility. How about Doomsday Prophets (like Starjade over on MPG), the Mayan 2012 prediction... there is so much fear being spread about that I think it is difficult to avoid ideas about the destruction of our species - global warming, selfishness winning the day, no love left in the world, Islamic/Communist extremists armed with nukes - you name it. Even if it is not something you think of daily, your subconscious will have it registered and will be generating thoughts accordingly. This doesn't mean I doubt whether the species will suvive of course - I do believe humans are not that stupid... they are just testing out a few scenarios before they decide to sort things out..

do you feel that everything must have a cause?

It seems living systems have a cause - certain molecules interacting. Causes and effects are our brain's way of looking at the dynamic universe, but I am not suggesting cause and effect are something objectively real outside of human brains - time needn't exist in the way we percieve it. In other words; no I don't think everything must have a cause... I stop at the Tao, and the Tao is eternal and without cause other than by brain creating the concept (however limited) of it: "The Tao which can be named is not the Tao" - Lao Tzu, etc.
itchaba
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 09, 2008

Total Topics: 2
Total Comments: 20
Avatar itchaba
#43 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/09 - 12:26 AM:

If men rule the power, then 2 men in a relationship have far more power than a heterosexual relationship! sticking out tongue

I think you have a reasonable theory, Xan. But do we really think homosexuality is caused by a single thing?
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#44 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/09 - 4:04 AM:

I think you have a reasonable theory, Xan. But do we really think homosexuality is caused by a single thing?

Well, thanks for being honest Itchaba. It just occurred to me as a thought the other day, and decided to post it here - it has brought up some very interesting questions, and hopefully it's brought some new stuff (like Michel Odent's work) to the attention of others.

Glad you managed to survive the collapse of MPG shaking head

But do we really think homosexuality is caused by a single thing?

I haven't really proposed homosexualityy is caused by a single thing - it is a combination of factors I have highlighted, as is the situation when anything which is created it seems. I am highlighting the patriarchy aspect because it may be the context within which people have not really considered homosexuality before.

I really do think we'll have to open up a thread about matriarchy though - because that seems even more debateable than this idea about homosexuality laughing

Matriarchy
1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch
2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

Matriarch
1 : a family, group, or state governed by a matriarch
2 : a system of social organization in which descent and inheritance are traced through the female line

The fact that there have been no recorded authentic Matriarchies in history raises the question whether one can actually exist - is 'rulership of a family' a male trait, and how would a matriarch assert her authority and punish those who disobeyed? Would people disobey? If not, why? etc.

I think this idea of a Matriarch is a concept created by Patriarchs to scare each other in to ensuring they remain as Partirachs! sisyphus

I have already put across my idea of what a Matriachy would be like.
Nihil Loc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 16, 2005

Total Topics: 56
Total Comments: 864
#45 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/08/09 - 5:41 PM:

I propose a graduate level research stint before baking any conclusions. *nerd*


smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#46 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/09 - 12:49 AM:

Suppose homosexuality is caused by the same things as heterosexuality.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#47 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/09 - 4:50 AM:

I propose a graduate level research stint before baking any conclusions.

No conclusions need to be in oven at this time, it seems.

Suppose homosexuality is caused by the same things as heterosexuality.

What... the procreative instinct? ... hmm
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#48 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/09 - 6:44 AM:

Xanthos wrote:

What... the procreative instinct? ... hmm


I should hardly call that an immediate cause. Rather an evolutionary pressure or an underlying pattern.
Xanthos
Junior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 08, 2008

Total Topics: 8
Total Comments: 97
Avatar Xanthos
#49 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/09/09 - 10:01 AM:

I should hardly call that an immediate cause. Rather an evolutionary pressure or an underlying pattern.

What lies in between the procreative instinct and hoterosexuality then? It seems we can't have one without the other... kooky
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#50 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/10/09 - 2:10 AM:

I suppose there's plenty of hetero's to go around with still, so we don't have to worry about the end of the human race just yet. smiling face
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.