Comments: HOT GRAN-ON-GRAN ACTION

Support group? I wonder what educational videos they show...maybe an X-rated version of Cocoon? (Shudder)

Posted by: Jerry at August 10, 2003 at 04:57 AM

See, what they need to be doing is urging younger women -- late teens or early 20's -- to engage in lesbianism, and let me watch.

Posted by: Lee at August 10, 2003 at 05:21 AM

If they think this is such a hot idea, why don't they encourage men to become homosexuals? And why does age matter? For that matter, why doesn't Mr. Carney "explore" homosexual relationships? (Or maybe he does - some full disclosure would be nice here.)

If they're going to encourage older heterosexual women to become homosexuals, due to the lack of same-aged men, why don't they also encourage young homosexual women, and men, to become heterosexuals because there are plenty of the opposite sex their age around?

People claim that homosexuality isn't a choice; now they're saying it is a choice (for women, at least). Which is it?

Every time I think people can't get any more loony, they prove me wrong. And on the taxpayers' dime, of course.

Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at August 10, 2003 at 06:06 AM

"Relationships" Australia? Crikey.

What are they saying? That homosexuality is a . . . a choice? I thought they were born that way.

Posted by: gnotalex at August 10, 2003 at 06:09 AM

"People claim that homosexuality isn't a choice; now they're saying it is a choice (for women, at least). Which is it?"

I guess the answer depends on how much you buy into this study.

"In contrast to men, both heterosexual and lesbian women tend to become sexually aroused by both male and female erotica, and, thus, have a bisexual arousal pattern."

Posted by: Ray Eckhart at August 10, 2003 at 07:52 AM

Your taxes fund these things? Good Lord!

Posted by: ilyka at August 10, 2003 at 08:36 AM

The study's author is a professor and chair of pyschology at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois - "One of the top 10 on the 2002 list of the best national universities compiled by U.S. News & World Report higher than any other school in the Midwest." according to the University.

Here's his home page.

More detailed information with links and scholarly publications can be found on the Research Tab at his site, for those interested in checking out his credibility.

Posted by: Ray Eckhart at August 10, 2003 at 09:11 AM

The rational explination is that homosexuiality is not entirely a choice or entirely a genetic trait.
Clearly there appears to be a continum from "rampantly heterosexual" to bisexual to "rampantly homosexual" (even though society encourages people to "pick a camp". Some people may be discouraged from being gay and that in other cases this may have no effect. Also some people may be made 'more gay" by their environment and some might be gay under almost any normal environment.
Take for example any other genetic trait like height or a behavioural trait like susceptibility to alcoholism. Height can be changed by any of a million environmental factors but it is also effected by genes. probably sexuality is more environmental than height and less so than alcoholism for example.
Also note that homosexuality is present in animals evolutionary psychology is not unfamiliar with how that might influence a species.

Posted by: scottie at August 10, 2003 at 09:40 AM

Let's do a thought experiment:

A government funded organisation encourages lonely older gay men to "become straight".

Why? It's a well known fact that gay men have much shorter life spans (AIDS, y'know) and are obsessed with the pursuit of much younger men who still look good in hot pants and spandex tank tops.

On the other hand, heterosexuality is seen as more nurturing and emotionally supportive. All those lonely, desperate women teetering on the edge of dykedom.

Watch the organisation have its funding pulled and roundly bollocked by every media outlet on the planet. Just for fun. let's try and have it prosecuted for villification and innciting hatred of us silly gay people who don't consider our sexual orientations a choice.

Posted by: Craig Ranapia (Other Pundit) at August 10, 2003 at 11:09 AM

Or they could get webcams and sell on-line subscriptions on the 'net.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 10, 2003 at 12:41 PM

If I never see the words "geriatric lesbianism" arranged together on the Internet again, that'll be cool.

And why do I feel like watching a Vanessa Redgrave movie right now?

Posted by: Ryne McClaren at August 10, 2003 at 01:55 PM

"Geriatric Lesbians'?
Please, not after I just finished my breakfast.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at August 10, 2003 at 02:11 PM

Uh, won't they need a gene implant. Isn't lesbianism supposed to be predetermined. That's the theory I hear.....whenever it's convenient.

Posted by: wallace at August 10, 2003 at 04:31 PM

Why doesn't Martina ever play Wimbledon any more?
"Cos she's already licked all those c**nts several times already.

Posted by: Habib Bickford at August 10, 2003 at 05:34 PM

I suspect that the appropriately named Mr Carney is hoping that they'll let him join in.

Am I just irony impaired? It's such an obvious hoax, yet the presentation is alarmingly convincing.

Posted by: Clem Snide at August 10, 2003 at 06:04 PM

Read that article- thought to myself, gee, there's a whole website full of socially awkward desperate males on spleenville, why don't they just come (cum?) surf here?

Posted by: habibsmumsone at August 10, 2003 at 06:45 PM

No, this is silly. There is really only one rational answer to the shortage of men.

It's a tough job, but I'm ready to volunteer.

Posted by: Ken Summers at August 11, 2003 at 06:22 AM