Conspiracy Theory

Are all hairdressers fem boys? Are all construction workers macho? Explore stereotypes on these and other issues here.

Moderators: selective_soldier, Lesley R. Charles, charmcitywop

Postby sparky95 » Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:38 am

I really find speculation on why people are gay is quite pointless. Why don't we just get on with being gay?
sparky95
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 12:41 am
Location: Brisbane,Queensland

Postby Guest » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:32 pm

qwertz wrote:In the 1st place who did invent such stupid notions like heterosexuality, scrolamun, homosexuality or collamun? Those are only notions, words to which according to some stupids consequences are connected. What is the origin of all that?


Sexual orientations are social constructs. Just like gender and some would argue that sex is also (maybe Lesley would have something to say about that). It is done through the use of language, because in order to interact and create a society, we must resort to using language. Language forces us to use categories, because this is what language is: a way of categorizing under paradigms and themes. It helps make sense of the world. So in order to relate, society created sexual and erotic categories. But few would admit that those categories define them entirely.

As far as I'm concerned, homosexuality is an erotic practice. Something we do to actualize desire, whether it be same sex or opposite sex, or even same gender or opposite gender. Without the social and cultural construction of sexual preferences, I would bet the farm that most would seek sexual encounters through intellectual and spiritual connections before sexual or gender attraction.

Anyway, I think the big G has little to do with it. But that's another Forum altogether...
Guest
 

Postby godless » Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:37 pm

Smitty,
Here's my take on homosexuality. As far back as any written record goes, tales of homosexual behavior are told. It is my belief that the human species is inately bisexual. Some of Margaret Meade's groundbreaking Anthropological research tends to bear this out. She and her colleagues found a number of "primitive" societies where men and women coupled at will. To me this is not surprising.

The living world can be divided into two categories: those that reproduce asexually and those that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction marked a significant advance in Evolution because it enabled much more complex animals to come into being. In general sexual reproduction involves cycles of ovulation in the female that produce chemical markers. These markers induce sexual behavior in the male, which results in the introduction of the necessary genetic material into the female to produce progeny. Please note that the urge that is encouraged is NOT to make children but simply to have sex.

The advent of cognitive brain structures species marked another advance in sexual evolution. All the new species that were equipped with the new deluxe brains were capable of sexual activity all the time. This meant that they were "horny" all the time. For them sex was not dependent on chemical triggers to initiate the necessary activity. Now the triggers were more dependent on social interactions and situations and could happen at any time. This increased the chances of an ovulation cycle sucessfully resulting in birth but it also mandated an enormous increase in the amount of copulating that a species performed.

How many times have you read stories about a man sticking his dick in the most rediculous hole imagineable in an attempt to get off. There are men that have f**ked other species, men that have attempted to f**k vacuum cleaners, knot holes, suction vents in swimming pools, etc. etc. It seems that if there's an appropriately sized orifice any place on the planet some guy has tried to get off on it. There are any number of rubber and plastic devices on the market today whose only purpose is to be used to stimulate a man to orgasm. There are even amazingly lifelike reproductions of men and women designed for that purpose. (The "Real" Doll).

To my mind this doesn't represent some kind of sexual aberration on the part of these men so much as it is indicitive of a society that has lost it's grip on the true nature of human sexuality. Men NEED sex. They need it badly. It is a drive that is as intregally woven into their very natures as wool in a sweater. Given that fact, isn't it logical to assume that it would only be natural for an animal with such a complicated and demanding sexual profile to include homosexuality in it's sexual repertoire? I think not.

I think that a turn around in our culture where homosexuality is concerned would actually strengthen our society rather than weaken it, as the religious zealots (read "profoundly sexually maladjusted" individuals) are fond of maintaining. For mankind, sexuality is as much a mental thing as a physical one, and we're capable of expressing our sexualality in an astounding variety of ways. Instead of fighting that I think it behooves us to embrace it and explore it and, yes, encourage it. The supression of our natural sexual nature has resulted in nothing but violence, abuse, an addiction to pornography, and any number of shame-based behaviors on the part of both men and women in our nation. Indeed, it isn't exclusive to our country. The phenomenon of the pedophile priests was actually a world-wide epidemic of sexually aborrhent behavior on the part of men who are soo sexually mal-adjusted that they sought refuse in the Bible and a convenient disguise for their hidden sexual agendas.

Isn't it time we actually faced up to who and what we really are? Isn't it time for any man to be able to turn to his buddy and say, "man, that guy's got a nice ass!"? If you've spent any time in a gym you know that every guy looks. The last Kinsey report stated that something like 70% of their male respondants admitted to entertaining some homosexual fantasies. Beyond that, you all know as well as I how completely satisfying and even amazing same gender sex can be. (At least I hope and pray everybody here does). I'm stating here and now that I believe those same feelings of satisfaction and communion are not signs of personal sexual dysfunction, as they are commonly held to be, but rather, a normal and healthy expression of human sexuality and inherent in our very nature.

So, for me, the ultimate questions concerning the "gay" gene are; does the gene actually mandate homosexual behavior or merely make the individual much more driven to embrace all aspects of our sexual potential? Is the homosexual aspect of the way the gene is manifested in Western Society more a result of sociestal sexual repression? Is there any way that science can determine which explanation is the correct interpretation of this gene's function? Finally, would the scientists involved in researching it be honest enough to tell the truth about it if they could finally decide about what this gene actually means?
I don't need to be godless - but I am
I don't need my head - keepin all my problems
I don't need your hand of god
I don't need, I say I'm godless
User avatar
godless
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 7:49 pm
Location: Phillydelph

Postby nimby » Sun Nov 16, 2008 12:26 am

Interesting topic I'd like to add to...

What about reincarnation? Sexual preference carried over from a past life? There is some startling case studies for reincarnation; phobias, unaccounted for physical scars, deja vu, memories, etc, why not sexuality?
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postby dracuscalico » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:26 pm

sparky95 wrote:I really find speculation on why people are gay is quite pointless. Why don't we just get on with being gay?


You just want to do "the nasty".... :twisted:
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby dracuscalico » Thu Nov 20, 2008 9:50 pm

godless wrote:Smitty,
So, for me, the ultimate questions concerning the "gay" gene are; does the gene actually mandate homosexual behavior or merely make the individual much more driven to embrace all aspects of our sexual potential? Is the homosexual aspect of the way the gene is manifested in Western Society more a result of sociestal sexual repression? Is there any way that science can determine which explanation is the correct interpretation of this gene's function? Finally, would the scientists involved in researching it be honest enough to tell the truth about it if they could finally decide about what this gene actually means?


They've done the entire genome map for humans and have not found a gay gene in either males or females. If they'd actually found it. It would have to be present an overwhelming majority of people who are gay if it is the causitive factor and absent in an overwhelming majority of people who are straight.

From a genetics standpoint, genes have to be passed on or the number of people with that trait would diminish rapidly with each successive generation of gays who do not produce offspring. If there was a gay gene, some could conclude that it was nature's attempt at population control or a way of weeding out the weaker males from the breeding pool thus ensuring survival of the species.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby dracuscalico » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:41 pm

The reason the source of gayness is being researched is because the gay rights movement is desperate for legitimate proof that will solidify it's position as a true minority group needing rights versus someone choosing to pursue an alternative lifestyle based upon sexual fetishes.

It's already been proven with heterosexual males that the type of women they are attracted to has to do with imprinting at an impressionable age of certain physical characteristics that he witnessed in women at various stages of development, and that even fetishes like getting spanked as a turn on, are linked to the fact that when getting spanked as a kid he had occasional involuntary hardons which became "linked" in his mind to the act of being spanked. (Even for myself, I believe I am heavily attracted to Asian males because I grew up idolizing them in the Kung Fu movies I would watch every weekend with my friends).

Something that no one is talking about, and everyone DENYS or avoids, is the molestation by/sexual encounters with older males at an impressionable age. No one wants to admit that it happenned to them, (unless they are coming clean in a tell all book for some reason or drinking enough to let down their guard). I'm doing neither but here's my two cents worth:

As far as the molestation angle, yes something happenned for a few years with an older cousin from the South who came to live with us. Before that, nothing regarding boys had ever occured to me. All I knew is that anything to do with girls was bad, nasty or wrong, but didn't know why. No one really said anything about stuff with boys at all one way or the other, so it was never a consideration. But after being molested starting at age 9, by my cousin, who was 6 years older than me, it changed how I viewed myself and what I thought I was worth and put me on a slipppery slope headed toward somewhere I thought I had no choice in going because of what I had done.

I can actually remember the turning point in 5th or 6th grade, there was a girl at school and we both liked each other and I was going to kiss her when we were alone in hallway and she would have been my first kiss. As I was getting ready to walk over to her, I decided that I couldn't because something must be wrong with me because of what my cousin was doing to me and I didn't deserve to have a girlfriend. So, I turned and walked away and left her standing there. I remember saying to myself something to the effect of, "you've make your choice, now you have to stick with it, your life is ruined now..." and I was never able to shake that guilt through all my adolescent years, so I never dated, whereas if I had dated I would have had a chance to make a real determination about what I wanted before it became carved in stone.

I understand that there are those who want to believe that things are simply genetic or that they were born that way, but in my case my older cousin was the one who initated everything. He was a bully and beat up on me all the time. He quit beating me up after making me do what he wanted. He essentially interrupted my normal childhood development at ages 9 though 14 and pretty much ruined me. He told me that if I told my parents he would tell them it was all MY idea and that my parents would believe him because he was older than me, and that they would put me in a foster home. And on top of it all, he lived an entirely straight lifestyle with a string of girlfriends after influencing me that way. I have thought many times about confronting him over this as adults, but I have a feeling that because he has always been, pretty much without conscience, that it would only gratify him to know that it still bothers me or that he had an impact upon my life.

I don't expect anyone to break out the Kleenex. That's not what this is about. I am just being forthright with regards to my own experience and saying that environment has more of an influence than people want to acknowledge.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby Phoenix6570 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:44 am

I believe environment can play a large part, but I think something else must be involved. I always was attracted to guys versus girls. Although I did like one girl when I was younger; in the background guys were what I was interested in. The environment I grew up in was completely against homosexuality. It was always something regarded as a grave sin that meant something was wrong with the I was acting. This had a big impact on me coming to terms with myself, but regardless I am what I am. Considering my experience I believe something else must play a part. Maybe certain things trigger it for different people. Everyone reacts to things in different manners so I wouldn't be surprised if it just comes in various ways.
"As long as a person doesn't admit he's defeated, he is not defeated-- he's just a little behind, and isn't through fighting" ~ Darrel Royal
User avatar
Phoenix6570
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Chester, New York

Postby DeckApe » Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:13 pm

dracuscalico wrote:
They've done the entire genome map for humans and have not found a gay gene in either males or females.


Just because they've mapped it doesn't mean they know what every last ounce of it does.
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Postby dracuscalico » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:20 pm

They've found genes for things that affect FAR LESS than 10% of the population. If a gene was responsible for something as pervasive as homosexuality that affects 10% or more of the poulation, it would not be that hard to find and it would be indentifiable and traceble through generations. It's just wishful thinking for something that even the masterminds of the gay rights movement have conceded to but tell people to say they were born that way because it's harder to argue against. The reason they use the word gay instead of homosexual is to deemphasize that the lifestyle is about who you have sex with, so they chose a harmless sounding word like gay, that up until that point had exclusively positive connotations and attached the word "rights" to it make it appear to be a cause for equality rather than seeking carte blanche approval for blatant hedonism.

Read their book, After The Ball. It is written by the masterminds of the gay rights movement dilineating the strategies they have decided to use to sell America on homosexuality.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby DeckApe » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:17 pm

dracuscalico wrote:They've found genes for things that affect FAR LESS than 10% of the population. If a gene was responsible for something as pervasive as homosexuality that affects 10% or more of the poulation, it would not be that hard to find and it would be indentifiable and traceble through generations.


Well, setting aside the fact for the moment that a fair number of homoosexuals don't reproduce...

...scientists, being the godless heathens that they are, may acutally be more interested in finding a genetic predisposition to cancer than homosexuality.

I am done with this topic.
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Postby dracuscalico » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:29 pm

"Godless Heathen? Isn't that what Gays are supposed to be? :lol:

The scientist most known for research on the gay gene was gay himself, had every incentive to skew the results in his own favor and STILL admitted to being unable to find it.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby nimby » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:13 am

Keeping in mind that "a fair number (pretty vague, but I'll work with it) of homosexuals don't reproduce", and also the belief that homosexual MAY be genetic, then wouldn't the law of diminishing returns kick in and homosexuality implode in on itself?

That is clearly not the case as studies show that it is constant, or in some areas of society, actually growing in popularity.
User avatar
nimby
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 2906
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 3:35 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

DIMINISHING RETURNS

Postby dracuscalico » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:54 pm

Let's say for example, that gayness is strictly genetic and only happens by passing on the gay genes. And that, in our example, 10% of the gay people have biological children, and they each have 2 kids apiece, and this continues forward for each generation...

1st generation: 1 billion gays x .10 x 2 = 200 million offspring next generation

2nd generation: 200,000,000 x .10 x 2 = 40 million offspring next generation

3rd generation: 40,000,000 x .10 x 2 = 8 million offspring next generation

4th generation 8,000,000 x .10 x 2 = 1.6 million offspring next generation

5th generation 1,600,000 x .10 x 2 = 320.000 offspring next generation

6th generation 320,000 x .10 x 2 = 64,000 offspring next generation

7th generation 64,000 x .10 x 2 = 12,800 offspring next generation

8th generation 12,800 x .10 x 2 = 2,560 offspring next generation

9th generation 2,560 x .10 x 2 = 512 offspring next generation

10th generation 512 x .10 x 2 = 102.4 offspring next generation

11th generation 102.4 x .10 x 2 = 20.48 offspring next generation

12th generation 20.48 x .10 x 2 = 4.096 offspring next generation


13th generation 4.096 x .10 x 2 = 0.8192 offspring next generation.....EXTINCTION !


If you count a generation as 25 years, starting at 1 billion gays, extinction would take just over 3 centuries, if 10% of gays had children, and had 2 kids apiece to pass on the gay genes.
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby DeckApe » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:11 am

Except recessive traits tend to manifest in a larger percentage of the gene pool over time. Genetics isn't completely random, but it is to a certain degree. It certainly doesn't follow mathematical rules.

Oh, that's right, I'm done with this topic. :oops:
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Postby dracuscalico » Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:33 pm

Gotcha ! :wink:

So if genes are randomly recessive, then EVEN FEWER gay genes would be passed on from gay people in the given example...

So give me some numbers....your best guestimate:

What percentage of straight people carry a gay gene that is recessive?

What percentage of of the time would those recessive gay genes, carried by straight people, be passed on and become dominant in their offspring ?

(You don't have to know the real numbers just tell me what you believe the percentages might be... )
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby DeckApe » Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:03 pm

dracuscalico wrote:Gotcha ! :wink:

So if genes are randomly recessive, then EVEN FEWER gay genes would be passed on from gay people in the given example...

So give me some numbers....your best guestimate:

What percentage of straight people carry a gay gene that is recessive?

What percentage of of the time would those recessive gay genes, carried by straight people, be passed on and become dominant in their offspring ?

(You don't have to know the real numbers just tell me what you believe the percentages might be... )


Nothing doing. Carrying on an argument based on speculation is pointless. It'd be lik someone from the eastern hemisphere nattering on about western culture ad nauseam. :D
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Postby dracuscalico » Sun Nov 23, 2008 7:51 pm

So you are saying, that a genetic cause for being gay is just speculation ? :twisted:

You've got a deal, let's shake on it.

:shock: What are you doing, I didn't mean grab my HAND! What about the secret "grab-him-by-the-business-end-like-you-mean-it-make-a-buddy-feel-good-til-he-shakes" shake ? 8)
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Postby DerWanderer » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:11 pm

Well if you're talking recessive genes, then you also have to consider that the gene can be carried in the non-gay population as well, they just only have one of the necessary alleles.

The trouble is, if you're talking about a single recessive, then things would basically occur as specified in your scenario, since all the offspring of gay parents would be gay, thus carrying both gene pairs.

But when you consider the rest of the population, in order to come up with the 10% of the global population being gay, then you would be dealing with a situation in which oh, say about 64% of the world population carrying at least one of the necessary gene pairs...Of course then you have to factor in how you handle bisexuals, which throw the whole single gene genetic solution into complete disarray. Then you've got potential schewing by demographics, population distributions, availability of mating pairs, environmental factors...

It's a mess. :P
DerWanderer
Member
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Michigan

Postby DeckApe » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:37 pm

Ain't that the truth. Looks like the business plan for mortgage recovery once you diagram it out like that.

Dracus: I'll admit, they haven't found it. it's just the only solution that makes any damn sense. Truce? :)
DeckApe
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Pacific Northwest

Postby dracuscalico » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:51 pm

Didn't know we were at war....reconciliation can be so....meaningful....when you do the secret "grab-him-by-the-business-end-like-you-mean-it-make-a-buddy-feel-good-til-he-shakes" shake! :P
dracuscalico
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 1202
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:48 pm

Previous

Return to Stereotypes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron