|
|
|
|
imhungry
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 11071
|
Kevin_Meaux wrote:
on edge wrote:
If you have any doubt about what you are deep down, just look at who you are attracted to when you are in public and everyone around you is anonymous strangers. It'll be just one sex not a little of both and it will never change during your life.
Thats a very hard idea to justify for other peoples opinions. Its especially true for something so shrouded by societal disapproval.
My question with the genetics vs environment argument has always been how homosexuality would continue to exist? I fully understand the motivation to argue for genetics. After decades of trying to make people "ungay", its fairly obvious that if people think it can be changed they will try and force it, despite how traumatic and unsuccessful it is. Ignoring that political issue, pure homosexuality seems incredibly unfavorable on an evolutionary level. Especially with the growing acceptance of homosexuality (less gay men/women forcing themselves to reproduce to appease opposite sex partners), you'd think that "gene" would die out.
I think its safer for everyone just to assume its genetics while the world manages to become a little more accepting.
In reference to the dick being harder to over look, thats kind of the idea of bisexuality. People put varying levels of importance on characteristics. Most people put a high level of importance on sex organ, but its interesting to question how much that importance is amplified by societal pressure to fit a label.
Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay and go through all of the garbage that they typically have to endure?
Genetics win, in my opinion. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
 |
|
|
Spartiates
Level 1
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 410
|
imhungry wrote:
Kevin_Meaux wrote:
on edge wrote:
If you have any doubt about what you are deep down, just look at who you are attracted to when you are in public and everyone around you is anonymous strangers. It'll be just one sex not a little of both and it will never change during your life.
Thats a very hard idea to justify for other peoples opinions. Its especially true for something so shrouded by societal disapproval.
My question with the genetics vs environment argument has always been how homosexuality would continue to exist? I fully understand the motivation to argue for genetics. After decades of trying to make people "ungay", its fairly obvious that if people think it can be changed they will try and force it, despite how traumatic and unsuccessful it is. Ignoring that political issue, pure homosexuality seems incredibly unfavorable on an evolutionary level. Especially with the growing acceptance of homosexuality (less gay men/women forcing themselves to reproduce to appease opposite sex partners), you'd think that "gene" would die out.
I think its safer for everyone just to assume its genetics while the world manages to become a little more accepting.
In reference to the dick being harder to over look, thats kind of the idea of bisexuality. People put varying levels of importance on characteristics. Most people put a high level of importance on sex organ, but its interesting to question how much that importance is amplified by societal pressure to fit a label.
Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay and go through all of the garbage that they typically have to endure?
Genetics win, in my opinion.
Genetics, and environment.
I'd still argue there is a scale. There is a plethora of pre-Christian (non-Abrahamic) cultures where some degree of bisexuality was the norm. Especially if monogamy wasn't expected (in other words, you could still be a daddy, even if you were also interested in men). Cultural memes are huge. In cultures that strongly condemn homosexuality, the only people who would come-out, are those with a strong genetic (natural) disposition towards homosexuality (the 9s and 10s on the scale in my previous post), where if you live in a culture where homosexuality is "okay", people solidly in the bi-sexual (3-7 range) start to engage in bi-sexual activity.
Girl on girl action (casually, like two hot chicks at a bar making out), has basically become totally socially acceptable in most of the US, amongst most the the 20-40 somethings that would be in a bar... thus, is happens a lot... more and more. These are not for the most part "lesbians" (i.e. strong 9 or 10s), but women who will probably marry a man, but also like women. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
imhungry
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 11071
|
|
When it comes to who you're attracted to sexually, I believe it's genetic, whether you act on it or not.
When it comes to bisexuality, there's different levels to which you might have more of a preference, but in the end, you like who you like. Societial pressure or not. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Spartiates
Level 1
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 410
|
|
imhungry wrote:
When it comes to who you're attracted to sexually, I believe it's genetic, whether you act on it or not.
When it comes to bisexuality, there's different levels to which you might have more of a preference, but in the end, you like who you like. Societial pressure or not.
But how you act depends a lot on social pressure... more than that, what you do with those thoughts.
How many women in 1950s, Pleasantville America you think would be making out with other girls at the bar today? If you're bisexual, and that's totally unacceptable, you're mind might just get to "Oh, she's cute." or "I wonder what that might be like", where in a different society, where there appear to be more possibilities for something to come out of it, you're entire thought process around it would be different, like "I wonder if she's interested/ever tried it."
I have no doubt were at these hetero T-Men living back in Ancient Sparta, 90%+ of them would have had some dude on dude action at some point in their life. Just like 90%+ of the bar scanks we all enjoy looking at when they pull each other's cloths off, wouldn't even make contact were we living in Puritanical Saleem of the 1600s.
I buy the generic argument totally, but I don't think it's binary on/off you got the ghey or you don't. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
imhungry
Level 0
Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 11071
|
Spartiates wrote:
imhungry wrote:
When it comes to who you're attracted to sexually, I believe it's genetic, whether you act on it or not.
When it comes to bisexuality, there's different levels to which you might have more of a preference, but in the end, you like who you like. Societial pressure or not.
But how you act depends a lot on social pressure... more than that, what you do with those thoughts.
How many women in 1950s, Pleasantville America you think would be making out with other girls at the bar today? If you're bisexual, and that's totally unacceptable, you're mind might just get to "Oh, she's cute." or "I wonder what that might be like", where in a different society, where there appear to be more possibilities for something to come out of it, you're entire thought process around it would be different, like "I wonder if she's interested/ever tried it."
I have no doubt were at these hetero T-Men living back in Ancient Sparta, 90%+ of them would have had some dude on dude action at some point in their life. Just like 90%+ of the bar scanks we all enjoy looking at when they pull each other's cloths off, wouldn't even make contact were we living in Puritanical Saleem of the 1600s.
I buy the generic argument totally, but I don't think it's binary on/off you got the ghey or you don't.
So..... you're saying that if society was totally ambivalent about gay men, then a large percentage of straight men would be more experimental with having sex with other men?
If so, I totally disagree. A true heterosexual guy feels NOTHING....no attraction whatsoever, when it comes to other men. Society doesn't dictate who we're attracted to. We either are or we aren't. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin_Meaux
Level 2
Join date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 56
|
imhungry wrote:
Spartiates wrote:
imhungry wrote:
When it comes to who you're attracted to sexually, I believe it's genetic, whether you act on it or not.
When it comes to bisexuality, there's different levels to which you might have more of a preference, but in the end, you like who you like. Societial pressure or not.
But how you act depends a lot on social pressure... more than that, what you do with those thoughts.
How many women in 1950s, Pleasantville America you think would be making out with other girls at the bar today? If you're bisexual, and that's totally unacceptable, you're mind might just get to "Oh, she's cute." or "I wonder what that might be like", where in a different society, where there appear to be more possibilities for something to come out of it, you're entire thought process around it would be different, like "I wonder if she's interested/ever tried it."
I have no doubt were at these hetero T-Men living back in Ancient Sparta, 90%+ of them would have had some dude on dude action at some point in their life. Just like 90%+ of the bar scanks we all enjoy looking at when they pull each other's cloths off, wouldn't even make contact were we living in Puritanical Saleem of the 1600s.
I buy the generic argument totally, but I don't think it's binary on/off you got the ghey or you don't.
So..... you're saying that if society was totally ambivalent about gay men, then a large percentage of straight men would be more experimental with having sex with other men?
If so, I totally disagree. A true heterosexual guy feels NOTHING....no attraction whatsoever, when it comes to other men. Society doesn't dictate who we're attracted to. We either are or we aren't.
The argument thats been presented in opposition is claiming that there's very few true heterosexuals (or homosexuals). Using them as an example is a little bit irrelevant. The only relevant thing is to refute that claim (which has already been done so we're kind of at a standstill on that line of thought).
I just qualify my earlier claim. I did not mean to imply that people "choose" to be attracted to someone, just that there is a component where passive forces subconsciously influence people. Kinda like asking why certain people like the color yellow.
Possibly a better claim to make the genetics theory work is that mild bisexuality is ingrained into most and then environmental factors push people in either direction? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bushidobadboy
Level 4
Join date: Nov 2004
Location: Wales
Posts: 11812
|
|
on edge wrote:
No way is it any where near equally genetics and environment. It's almost all genetics. .
I don't think so. There are PLENTY of cases where boys were subjected to homosexual acts whilst young and that caused them to 'be' gay, simply because they thought it was normal to have sex with other boys/men.
Upon finding out (years later perhaps) that male:female relationships were actually yhe 'norm' they discovered that they still enjoyed sex with other males, because that was what happened to them during their formative years.
That is about environment, obviously.
BBB |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
BobParr
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 614
|
MarvelGirl wrote:
Ginger kids- a blight on mankind(except for the rare hot chicks)
Hot redheads are not gingers. The term ginger applies to ugly redheads.
Are you sure about that, MarvelGirl? I always thought ginger referred to someone with a naturally orangey hair color between blond and red. These people almost always also have very pale, freckly skin. They are not necessarily ugly.
Take Nicole Kidman, for example. She often appears to be a blonde (probably just dye) but I'm pretty sure she may be naturally ginger. And freckles are easy to hide when you have a team of Hollywood makeup artists at your disposal. I doubt ANY guy would consider Nicole Kidman to be ugly.
As usual, Print spoke the truth! |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
print
Level 4
Join date: Aug 2004
Location: Poland
Posts: 5678
|
BJack wrote:
print wrote:
Ginger is sexy, Fools.
Thanks for cementing my point asshat. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
on edge
Level 4
Join date: Aug 2005
Location: Washington, USA
Posts: 2541
|
bushidobadboy wrote:
on edge wrote:
No way is it any where near equally genetics and environment. It's almost all genetics. .
I don't think so. There are PLENTY of cases where boys were subjected to homosexual acts whilst young and that caused them to 'be' gay, simply because they thought it was normal to have sex with other boys/men.
Upon finding out (years later perhaps) that male:female relationships were actually yhe 'norm' they discovered that they still enjoyed sex with other males, because that was what happened to them during their formative years.
That is about environment, obviously.
BBB
I guess we have to define what is gay. What you describe above about an abused boy later living a homosexual lifestyle I don't call gay. He's heterosexual and screwed up. That's different from gay. The boy became comfortable with gay sex and he was emotionally stunted and never learned to relate and function with females. If you put that boy in the lab and connected wires to his head, not his penis, they would find the deep core of who he is would respond to beautiful females the way it's supposed too. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
TrollSlayer
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2010
Location: England
Posts: 53
|
|
the fact is we are animals and our main goal in life is to reproduce for our species. that means "man" has sex with "woman"..That's why men always needs to penetrate and sow his seed in something and women always need something penetrating them (look at lesbians with strap ons)
as a reply to the OP, your friend is just going through a phase and is curious. The sex tape made her horny etc...all she needs is a man to F8ck the living daylights out of her |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin_Meaux
Level 2
Join date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 56
|
|
TrollSlayer wrote:
the fact is we are animals and our main goal in life is to reproduce for our species. that means "man" has sex with "woman"..That's why men always needs to penetrate and sow his seed in something and women always need something penetrating them (look at lesbians with strap ons)
as a reply to the OP, your friend is just going through a phase and is curious. The sex tape made her horny etc...all she needs is a man to F8ck the living daylights out of her
Thats a pretty serious misunderstanding of homosexual sex. Not all guys like to top. Some guys don't like buttsex at all. Not all girls having sex with girls are into penetrative sex.
And bringing animals into the discussion, animals are gay too. I'd say its actually a lot more common. Or did you think Fido was just humping your leg for the exercise? (and no thats not the only instance, animals actually do have same-sex sexual activity)
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Kevin_Meaux
Level 2
Join date: Apr 2008
Location:
Posts: 56
|
bushidobadboy wrote:
on edge wrote:
No way is it any where near equally genetics and environment. It's almost all genetics. .
I don't think so. There are PLENTY of cases where boys were subjected to homosexual acts whilst young and that caused them to 'be' gay, simply because they thought it was normal to have sex with other boys/men.
Upon finding out (years later perhaps) that male:female relationships were actually yhe 'norm' they discovered that they still enjoyed sex with other males, because that was what happened to them during their formative years.
That is about environment, obviously.
BBB
From what I've read thats more of a stereotype than a common occurrence. At least thats the general opinion of sites focused on victims of sexual abuse. I would say they'd be relatively knowledgeable, but I recognize a strong potential for bias as well. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Mettahl
Level 0
Join date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 264
|
|
I think that a lot of people are confused on what it means to have homosexual tendencies. If you were screwed up by abuse somewhere along the line and now enjoy butt sex, you're still at least bi. You don't give your buddies reach arounds because you're a straight man. I've known plenty of people that have switched from one sexual preference to another, and plenty that have phases where they like one sex, and then switch it up for a while. People that will be more interested in the same sex for a while, and then later on be into the opposite sex for a while. It isn't just straight/gay, and that's it. I think that I agree with whoever mentioned the Freud scale (probably one of the few agreeable things that crazy cokehead ever said).
I've also read that men and women with higher relative levels of testosterone tend to be more JUST straight or JUST gay. Whatever their sexual preference, they tend to more strictly adhere to that sexual preference if they have more testosterone. It may be just an empty correlation, though. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article Discussions
