Do nymphomaniacs, both male and female, really exist?
140810
Sure they do, but its an antiquated term.  Now comes under the general category of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
1165496
Interesting. I do believe homosexuals are wired differently than heterosexuals. (on a sexual level, anyway) I don't know if I'd call it a defect from a secualar view. \n\nI remember research from several years ago that showed a gay male's hyperthalamous (sp? part in the brain that controls the sexuality) was more simular to a straight woman's than a straight male.
591017
Yes - all of them. I prefer to call them "deities," though, so as not imply the exclusion of the female, androgyny and sexless gods as well.
599686
Female anacondas do not devour the males!\n\n- Praying mantis\n- Many spiders\n- Ceratopogonid midges\n\nhttp://www.yesbutnobutyes.com/archives/ugly_animal_kingdom/index.html\n\n---------\nUpdate: An interesting article that discusses adaptive and nonadaptive hypotheses for sexual cannibalism in spiders.  The evidence suggests that, at least in spiders, there's a connection between foraging decisions and cannibalistic behaviour towards males. \nhttp://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00363.x/full/\n(let me know if you cannot download the article)
322976
Just a clarification-There arent any "true" hermaphrodites in humans-That would indicate that they could both become pregnant *and* impregnate another.  Humans sometimes can have partial external genitalia of both male and female, but do not have both functional testes and functional ovaries.\nAny medical school library would have a great deal of information on this.
275799
They are such multi-faceted beings !!!\n\nFemale dysfunction.  Despite significant anatomic and embryologic parallels between men and women, the multifaceted nature of female dysfunction clearly is distinct from that of the male.
103370
I think you mean hermaphrodite. That is an organism (even human, but rarely) that has both male and female sex organs.
512209
There are male ladybugs too. \n\nIt's almost impossible for the average person to tell them apart. But here are some clue that might help. \n\nFirst, females are usually larger than males. Second, if you observe one ladybug riding atop another ladybug, they are in the process of mating. \n\nA male ladybug will grab the female's elytra (hard wings) and holds on tight. \n\nAn entomologist (bug scientist) can see the difference between males and females under a microscope.
917955
No, they are hermaphrodites, so the question does not apply, for obvious reasons.
490553
It is called nymphomania. Look it up. Yes you can be helped. Seek counsling or go the doctor to be checked for STD'S, and AIDS that will make you stop for a while. Guaruntee!
851200
How does this relate to the LGBT area, as you are talking about male-female sex?   Please post questions in the correct area.\n\nI would imagine some like it, and some don't.
377564
Hey there.\n\nOf course there are! I would consider myself one of them. The only unfortunate aspect is that so many women just consider me a sex object. *sigh* They never actually care about my feelings or anything. :D
232636
It's part of your genitalia, dear. The love button- so to speak. Usually referred to as the clit, it is a wonderful thing. Interesting, tho, when I attended the BodyWorlds exhibit in Chicago last summer, they didn't bother to label it on the female genitalia. All the guys' parts were labeled. It really has a stigma to it to even mention it! It's so weird that society isn't ready to give women the acknowledgment that they're allowed to be sexual beings. Just because it isn't flopping around between our legs doesn't mean it's not there! Get a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves and discover for yourself what it is to be a woman! Have fun!
772939
Ohhh.....good question.\nI think Metrosexual girls are called tomboys.
234681
This is a large question, and the source of much controversy, conflict, anger, and hilarity for all of recorded history. Aristophanes' Lysistrata is merely one of the earliest in a long literary tradition exploring the question. James Thurber is only one of the most recent, and funniest, of those writing in English.\n\nOnly in the last few decades has there been any scientific evidence which even begins to explain why the so long observed differences exist. \n\nIt is clear that there are, on average, anatomic differences between female and male brains. For instance, in the connection between the two hemispheres. And imaging studies of working brains ('PET scans') have shown some apparently characteristic differences in the areas of the brain used by males and females when their brains are ostensibly doing the same thing. There is even enough of such evidence that there are now centers for the study of gender differences. \n\nFrom a behavioral viewpoint, the field of evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology) has produced a series of testable hypotheses about differences between female and male behavior. These are essentially unique in the field because they suggest experiments which can test them. Thus far, this approach has shown promise in accounting for some of the non-cultural non-religious behavior differences. Thus far, even such things as the clothing styles chosen when going to dance clubs have been accounted for to some extent by this approach. Much of this work is controversial amongst one or another group since it deals with issues (eg, sex, reproduction, mating behavior, ...) which are of great importance socially or religiously.\n\nThe most reasonable account of behavioral differences between the sexes is based on reproductive success. Males who behaved this way (or these ways) tended to have more descendants (more children who survived to have children themselves), and females who behaved that way (or those ways) also had more children who survived to have children of their own. Much of the reasoning on these matters is based in the fact that, in humans, females cannot have more than a small number of children, given the underlying biology. We humans are born far from able to cope with life, and require a long period of maturation before we can. We share some of this extended infancy with some other species (such as chimpanzees and orangutans) and, to some extent, they show similar sex linked behavioral differences. Males, on the other hand, are capable of having a great many children. But, because of the long term helpless infancy period, together with typical human female awkwardness during much of pregnancy, it seems likely that males who stayed with the female increased the chances that children (half of whose genes came from him) were more likely to survive to child-bearing age. This pattern may also account for male jealousy (only if the female is sexually exclusive can he be sure the child is his) and female interest in male resource control. If he's rich (however rich is measured in a society), he will likely be able to increase the chance that her children will survive to have children of their own. Some of these suggestions (hypotheses) are subject to test in humans and some other species; the evolutionary approach has illuminated some hitherto opaque behaviors.\n\nThese matters are very near to the center of much conflict in traditional (and some other not so traditional) societies, many of whose citizens are made uneasy by new and different behaviors and by research which either 'endorses' some of those behaviors or 'undermines' some of their existing or traditional behaviors. In fact, the science is still in its infancy, and those who claim it endorses this or that don't understand it, and those who fear the science would be better advised to concentrate on policy makers of various kinds who don't understand the nature of science, nor much of this emerging scien
672644
This is an answer to your question that also touches on a couple of the other answers that you have received.\n\nHomosexuality is sexual attraction to the same sex to the exclusion of the opposite sex.\n\nHomosexuality is as natural as any other form of sexuality.  The traditional natural law argument maintained that homosexuality did not exist in nature, and therefore was unnatural.  Now we know that to be totally false.  Decades long indepth studies have revealed that in fact homosexuality exists in all of the hundreds of species studied; furthermore, among those with pair bonding, homosexual pair bonds occur to the exclusion of any heterosexual mating.  The seminal study in this field is by Dr. Bruce Bagemihl and is titled "Biological Exuberance" it is published by St. Martin's Press and may be available used online.\n\nThe argument that it is communicable -- one of the traditional anti-gay argumetns -- is demonstrably false.  People may deal with their sexuality later in life, but sexual attraction to same sex members combined with a total lack of sexual attraction to opposite sexed members cannot be spread from one person to the other.\n\nTraditionally (pre 1970s) psychology treated homosexuality as a pathology (disease) and attempted, though admittedly without success, to "cure" it  -- that changed in the 1970s, partially as a result of political action, but mostly as a result of a series of studies that convinced most psychologists that homosexuality was, whatever else it might be, neither a disease nor curable.  Hundreds of peer reviewed studies since then have supported the progressive conclusion of the 1970's psychologists and psychiatrists.\n\nToday we have a movement that claims it can cure homosexuality.  Some of what it uses is pop psychology, most of what it uses is religious.  The reality is, now being established by study after study, despite bitter opposition from the practicioners to any studies being performed; that it doesn't, and in fact can't change anyone at all.\n\nThat is not to say that a gay person can't pretend to be straight.  Can't marry a woman, presuming that we are talking about a male (which will ill serve the woman, because real attraction will never be there)  and can't father children.  The whole process of living a secret life of one night stands and hidden trysts while pretending to be straight is the very closet from which gay people are escaping.  It doesn't change what you are -- only lets the bigots feel more comfortable that you are "like everyone else," at the cost of your self-worth, dignity, and character -- and most of your female partner's dignity as well.  To be in the closet is not to be straight, it is to be unhappy, perhaps even more unhappy than being celibate. It is also not to say that a gay person can't decide to live without sex, anyone can do that.  A gay person however is a gay person; and cannot be anything else, not because of pathology, which has been rejected now for over 40 years by the doctors that study homosexuality, but because it is what is natural to him or her.\n\nRegards,\n\nReynolds Jones\nSchenectady, NY\nhttp://www.rebuff.org
734074
I have a theory that western society is presenting the ideal female as essentially a feminine looking boy with large breasts and fat lips. The top models have figures that look like a skinny 14 year old boy who has had breast and lip implants. It's sexist in a sense -- or maybe I should say bisexist? Younger men seem to be becoming more comfortable with the "effeminate boy" sex object than with real women.