Talk:Alp/@comment-25041612-20141009072715/@comment-25035274-20150212162414

"Party Vanderbilt -- Homosexuality isn't caused by having too little testosterone. There are plenty of extremely manly homosexuals out there, after all. "

Surprisingly enough, I'm well aware of the fact. I'm prone to facaetiousness and/or hyperbole.

"The question though, is are you good looking to the opposite sex? If a man can truthfully answer no, then he has no risk of alphood. But if he can truthfully answer yes, then he is at risk regardless of testosterone levels.

The ability for a man to look at himself and accurately judge whether he needs to go shower/shave/change clothes or whether he's fine the way he is, is the same trait that determines whether a man is gay or not. It's more of a slider bar than an on/off switch.

At one extreme, you get an ugly man who has no clue what looks good to attract women and canot be trusted to dress himself or monitor his own hygiene. Slide the bar a little away from that, and you get the average male. Slide it a little further and you have metrosexuals. Slide it to about the 40 percent to 60 percent mark and you have various levels of bisexual. Slide it past there, and you get a homosexual man. At the extreme end, you'd get the stereotypical flamboyant homosexual, the kind of guy who is not just gay, but shares beauty tips with women.

Straight men like to think they're not even slightly homosexual, but it's just not true. "

I'm curious as to what you base this assessment on. It essentially summates as, "If you're a man who doesn't look like a hobo, you want the cock. If you work to impress women, then you're really just repressing an urge to jump on a dick."

That's a pretty damned big leap of logic, so I hope you have lots of supporting documentation and quantification; or, at the very least, I hope you know where lots of such supporting items are. Which is to say, I hope you can provide proof. Genuine, scientifically acceptable proof, mind. Well designed tables and charts, which are linked to very real, very valid studies done over a long period of time.

If you don't, then it has little merit at best, and is actually rather disrespectful at worst as it means that you're telling people that you know better than they do what they want in the sack.

As a note, we clearly disagree on this subject, but I am glad to see someone posting well written, intelligent observations around the place.