As per your question, I do enjoy a mix of both conceptual/abstract and personal experiences. Having only one would be fine, but both help break up the monotony. Sure, it’s been described as “the gay view”, but when this was first formed it’s purpose was to be freeform and limitless.

What you’re doing is great and I am so glad that ETHP has returned. Love y’all!

Love the show (Wanda’s getting a bit more feisty these days…LOVE IT!)

First time with the new ETHS – am keeping an open mind, but there is something missing from here –

but i do love the interviews – when you have a show by yourselves there isn’t anyone to ask you things – so this is a great opportunity to ask what listeners want to know –

JayT

Look at it from the point of view of the gene: there’s seemingly no reason why homosexuality would evolve – but if one takes the gene-centred view of evolution, homosexuality makes a lot of sense for a mother with a lot of heterosexual offspring. Under the gene-centric view, genes ‘care’ about propagation, not individuals or species. If a gene increases the ability for someone to produce offspring but *also* makes a few more of those offspring to be homosexual, that gene is still getting widely propagated. Does it matter that those offspring aren’t going to reproduce? Not at all. Evolution can work in any number of different ways: kin selection is one way. The gay offspring may still help the propagation of the genes: it may help it’s kin to survive or reproduce. It may care for it’s parents and help them to reproduce.

This doesn’t really solve the nature-nurture debate – which isn’t really very important at all. If you think homosexuality is wrong or evil, it makes no difference whether it’s genetic or environmental in cause. There are plenty of diseases that are genetic, but that doesn’t mean we don’t try and find medicines for them. Similarly, it doesn’t matter why someone has a particular sexual orientation – those of the stupid persuasion will still find a reason to be homophobic, and those of the anti-stupid persuasion will still have to fight their idiocy. Nature-nurture and genetic causes are merely of academic interest. I mean, flip it around – if we found out that heterosexuality or evangelical Christianity had cause ‘x’, would that be a sufficient argument for the abolition of heterosexuality or “values voters”?

As Madge used to say “it’s the internet, it doesn’t mean shit”. Unless it’s whorehole.org, of course, in which case shit is the least of your worries.

This was a fun show. Georgia’s pussy paintings (flowers) are not in dispute. She did do other subjects, here is an example at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts.

http://www.artsmia.org/viewer/detail.php?v=12&id=2725

Madge is correct, it’s the variety I like most about this show. I think talking about current events is important and I love hearing the different opinions despite the fact I NEVER agree with Her Royal Majesty The Baroness Vera of the Valley, but the more personal experience stuff is fascinating as well.

Vera, by the standards of regular people, your house is large. Wanda, I’ve heard your schlong is HUGE!