A Thought on homosexuality... - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CSflim · 07-02-2003, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
You acknowledge your reasons as being sweeping generalizations and you still hold onto the view depends on those reasons.

Yes they are generalizations. They are stereotypes. But stereotypes have reasons for being. The problem with stereotyping is that it leads to prejudice: The idea that an arbitrary gay person (or member of ANY other minority subject to stereotyping) would be assumed to cohere with these specific stereotypes.

To elaborate: I'm Irish. A stereotype exists of Irish people, most notably drinking habits (social) and red hair (genetic). Now you take your non-existent stereotype of an Irish person and I will laugh at it, and claim that it does NOT represent the essence of Irish people, not even the majority of people, let alone all Irish people.
That being said, comparison with other nations would lend support to the stereotype: There are more people with red hair living in Ireland (proportionately) than in say the U.S. That's not to say red hair is the majority, or even common, it is still relatively rare compared with black or brown. It would be slightly less common than blonde. But because the stereotype does not ring absolutely true, does not trivialise its importance: There are reasons why "Irish people have red hair", and those reasons are genetic.
Similarly, I know for a fact that I am not a raving drunken lunatic, but I will concede to that stereotype in that there is more alcohol abuse in Ireland than in many others. The reasons why "Irish people are drunken bastards" is not genetic, but social.

I am saying that homosexuals have a stereotype. A stereotype which is not representative of an arbitrary homosexual. It is not even representative of ANY specific homosexual. Rather it is a "caricature" of exaggerated characteristics to encapsulate homosexual people when juxtaposed with "normal people".
Again, think of a stereotypical "nerd". Now I know lots of nerds. But none I know who aligns perfectly with The Nerd, but certainly, when regarding the "community" as a whole certain characteristics emerge: Weird hair, poor fashion sense, poor hygiene (spots), a flair for mathematics and programming, poor social skills, strange humour etc.

Anyway, my original point, is that the stereotype of a homosexual male IS grounded in reality in this sense. To put it to you another way: Have you ever met a person and just know, intuitively, that that person was gay? I'm sure you have, and the reason for this is due to shared characteristics with the stereotype. On the other hand, have you ever met a person, and afterwards find out that they were gay and you had no idea? Also I'm sure the opposite is true: you meet a guy who you just "know" is gay, who turns out to be straight. This does not negate the usefulness of the stereotype for our purpose, where we're looking at the population as a whole.

Now you could claim that the stereotype of the Homosexual is in fact, purely a social construction, that gay people only fall in line with the stereotype as a subconscious effort to be accepted by this new "gay community" after being excluded from the "normal community". However, I don't believe that this is so. Have you ever “know” a person and known that they were gay, before they did? I know I have. A guy I went to primary school with, had a stereotypical homosexual personality and physical facial features. He didn't know he was gay, being too young to have realised his sexual feelings, but many people suspected it. It is only after he matured that he realised that he was in fact gay. He wasn't hiding his feeling for fear of ostracisation (not at first at least), he simply didn't know.
So don't try and tell me that there is nothing to stereotypes. The word is seen as inappropriate, as it is so open to abuse, due to people making judgements about INDIVIDUAL people based on the stereotype. ("Oh he's Irish, he must be a drunken bastard!"

)

Quote:

To the general idea of the rest of your post:
A person's default sexuality seems to be bisexual-whatever generates pleasure is okay. There's precedent for this in nature and in history. In greece, rome, etc., bisexuality was popular amoung men. Homosexuality also occurs in nature and Dolphins, the only known species to have sex for pleasure, also engages in homosexuality.

Whatever generates pleasure is Ok. That seems fair enough in my book. However, that said, I know that I would not enjoy homosexual sex. The thought of engaging in it repulses me. I am not attracted to male people. Heterosexual sex, I enjoy. I AM attracted to females. I strongly believe that I am hard wired to be that way, and heterosexuality is not simply due to social conditioning.
In a similar way that a homosexual is "born that way", I too am born a heterosexual. There is definitely a biological prerequisite for sexuality. That being said, I have no doubt that society can reinforce certain attitudes. Many homosexuals live an unsatisfying heterosexual life due to an unconscious avoidance of being ostracised.
Most of the homosexuality that occurs in nature (not all) is down to the rarity of partners, often down to mankind’s intervention. Kind of like an all male prison, where the idea of "homosexual sex is better than no sex" is adopted. But this is not a natural environment.

Quote:

It, of course, is changed through nurture especially in our soceity where homosexuality is generally disaproved in.

That’s a tricky one to prove. But I would claim that they key is to look to history, when a time when homosexuality was not looked down upon. It was certainly more openly prevalent than today, but it was still not "the norm". Heterosexual sex still outnumbered homosexual sex.
I really think that you're over-playing the social influence card. It sounds to me like you are saying that a person’s sexuality is a life-style choice, and hence subject to change.

Quote:

There doesn't need to be a "homosexual gene". You've got a gene that tells you to like male or female. Sometimes they may just get mixed up.

I agree that there can't be a homosexual gene. However, there equally can't be an "attracted to males" or "attracted to females" gene. Think briefly about the gentic mechanisms that would be behind it. My idea, is that homosexuality is not genetic, but is biologically hard-wired. Hence my reasoning of it being decided in the embryonic stage.

Why do men have nipples?

My suggestion is that the answer to this question is the same as the explanation for biological homosexuality. Both men and women follow the same initial embryonic recipe, but then the two begin to diverge* at a particular stage in the embryonic process. Homosexuality is due to a biological "confusion" at this divergence. In this sense homosexual/bisexual men are, at a biological level, partly female. Homosexual/bisexual women are ,at a biological level, partly male.
This theory appears to agree with the stereotype, which as I have illustrated above, is not without merit.

*Note: I am not saying that the divergence is discrete.

Darkblack · 07-02-2003, 10:41 AM

Interesting read.

papermachesatan · 07-02-2003, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warrrreagl
Hey papermachesatan, I saw a website last year where a guy built a cool paper mache satan and documented the construction on his website. Are you that guy?

Nope but that is where I got my name from.

papermachesatan · 07-02-2003, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
Yes they are generalizations. They are stereotypes. But stereotypes have reasons for being. The problem with stereotyping is that it leads to prejudice: The idea that an arbitrary gay person (or member of ANY other minority subject to stereotyping) would be assumed to cohere with these specific stereotypes.

...snip...

So don't try and tell me that there is nothing to stereotypes. The word is seen as inappropriate, as it is so open to abuse, due to people making judgements about INDIVIDUAL people based on the stereotype. ("Oh he's Irish, he must be a drunken bastard!"

)

Your entire perspective regarding sterotypes is taken from the position that you know very little about homoseuxals.

Female personality traits, the idea of feminine behavior, and their interests(fashion, art, etc.) are social. The only only genetic differences lies in whether they're attracted to the same or opposite sex.

Again, another quote coming from an AIM conversation:
PsygnisFive (3:44:31 PM): I beg to differ
PsygnisFive (3:44:43 PM): The homosexuals you NOTICE are like that[feminine behavior]
PsygnisFive (3:44:58 PM): you never notice the beer drinking sports loving queers because they dont stand out
PsygnisFive (3:45:10 PM): and then theres the fact that the majority of DRAG QUEENS are not gay

Quote:

Whatever generates pleasure is Ok. That seems fair enough in my book. However, that said, I know that I would not enjoy homosexual sex. The thought of engaging in it repulses me. I am not attracted to male people. Heterosexual sex, I enjoy. I AM attracted to females. I strongly believe that I am hard wired to be that way, and heterosexuality is not simply due to social conditioning.

Your repulsion to homosexually is largely cultural(nurture as opposed to nature) while the attraction is genetic. You're generally expected to demonstrate 'male behavior'
Your being hard wired to be repulsed at homosexuality would conflict with all examples of primates and history itself. In Greece and Rome, homosexual activity was common. In sparta, the majority of males were bisexual.

CSflim · 07-02-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
Female personality traits, the idea of feminine behavior, and their interests(fashion, art, etc.) are social. The only only genetic differences lies in whether they're attracted to the same or opposite sex.

Again, another quote coming from an AIM conversation:
PsygnisFive (3:44:31 PM): I beg to differ
PsygnisFive (3:44:43 PM): The homosexuals you NOTICE are like that[feminine behavior]
PsygnisFive (3:44:58 PM): you never notice the beer drinking sports loving queers because they dont stand out
PsygnisFive (3:45:10 PM): and then theres the fact that the majority of DRAG QUEENS are not gay

You're telling me that there is NOTHING to be said for stereotypical homosexual traits? Where then, did the steroetype come from?

EDIT: BTW, great points! By far the most interesting debate I've had on this board!

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
Why do men have nipples? My suggestion is that the answer to this question is the same as the explanation for biological homosexuality. Both men and women follow the same initial embryonic recipe, but then the two begin to diverge* at a particular stage in the embryonic process. Homosexuality is due to a biological "confusion" at this divergence. In this sense homosexual/bisexual men are, at a biological level, partly female. Homosexual/bisexual women are ,at a biological level, partly male.
This theory appears to agree with the stereotype, which as I have illustrated above, is not without merit.

Some believe men have nipples to act as 'dummy' teats to calm infants when the female is not available.

You are correct when you state that our sex is not determined at the moment of conception and that we all start off as neither male nor female . . . but i completely disagree that homosexuality is a hard-wired situation.

Males have differing levels of oestregen and females have differing levels of testosterone . . . . which may explain why some men are generally hornier than others (some women too!) and explain why females display male characteristics and vice versa but I believe this has NOTHING to do with homosexuality . . otherwise you would expect every male with a strong feminine side to be gay . . . and every female tomboy to be lesbian.

I am pretty convinced it is a life-style choice . . the prison scenario almost proves that. More interstng to me is the observation that in a gay relationship . . . one of the pair 'acts' like the female . . and in a lesbian relationship one of the pair takes the male role? Its kinda like they are playing at being heterosexual? Whats that all about then? Its like children playing doctors and nurses . . . . I cant understand why you dont see two lesbian females giggling their way around the shopping mall . . . . there is always one of them doing something 'male'. . . . and similarly you never see two gay guys woodworking together or building a brick wall, farting and drinking beer . . . they are much more likely to be found giggling their way around a shopping mall.

Hope that doesnt sound sterotypical and narrow-minded . . . . .

papermachesatan · 07-02-2003, 03:22 PM

Quote:

You're telling me that there is NOTHING to be said for stereotypical homosexual traits? Where then, did the steroetype come from?

Sparta. A soceity where most of the men were bisexual or gay:

Quote:

Everything was now dedicated to making each Spartiati a superb and unquestioningly loyal soldier. The Process started at birth. Newly-born babies were inspected by a committee of elders, and, if considered too weak , they were left to die by exposure on the sloped of Mount Taygetos. Those who survived were carefully brought up as Plutarch describes:

'The women did not bathe the babies with water, but with wine, making it a sort of test of their strength. For they say that the epileptic and sickly ones lose control and go into convulsions, but the healthy ones are rather toughened like steel and strengthened in their physique. The nurses displayed care and skill:they did not use swaddling -bands, making the babies free in their limbs and bodies? they also made them sensible and not fussy about their food, not afraid of the dark or frightened of being left alone, not inclined to unpleasant awkwardness or whining. So even some foreigners acquired Spartan nurses for their children.

At the age of seven, a Spartan boy came directly under the control of the city, and remained so in effect until the time of his death. From this age boys were brought up in packs, which had a prefect system, and were under the general charge of a state director of education , the paidonomos. The military emphasis is explained by Plutarch:

' They learned reading and writing for basic needs, but all the rest of their education was t make them well-disciplined and steadfast in hardship and victorious in battle. For this reason, as boys grew older, the Spartans intensified their training, cutting their hair short and making them used to walking barefoot and for the most part playing named. When the boys reached the age of twelve, they no longer had tunics to wear, but got one cloak a year. Their bodies were tough and unused to baths and lotions. They only enjoyed such luxury only a few special days a year.They slept, in packs, on beds which they got together on their own, made from the tops of the rushes to be found by the river Eurotas. These they broke of f with their bare hands, not using Knives.'

The smallest offences were punishable by whipping, and food was deliberately rationed, so that the boys were forced t to steal to get more -'if they are caught theft are whipped severely, for stealing carelessly and unskillfully'. The packs of boys were matched against each other in violent games with a ball and in straightforward fights. As they approached the age or twenty and manhood, the training grew more and more severe and military. At the festival of the goddess Artemis Ortheia, the older boys had to take part in a contest in which they snatched as many cheeses as possible from the steps of the altar to the goddess. To do so it was necessary to run the gauntlet of guards, with whips, who were instructed to use them as hard as they could. Some youths died as a result. Another test was the Krypteia, or 'period of hiding', during which the boy had to live alone and under cover in the countryside.
the source

Spartan men were fierce warriors and engaged in homosexual activities but yet did not demonstrate any the behaviors you associate with the homosexual stereotype.

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 03:37 PM

Papermachesatan . . I saw a tv programme about this on BBC2 about a year ago . . . . . . . . whilst they had a strong male bonding and the young males cared for the older warriors . . it was argued that this reflected the status of the males as against the vastly subservient and inferior women. There was no definate homosexual acts taking place. A bit like a modern male-only golf club where women are frowned upon and perhaps seen as second class . . . . . it does not follow that homosexuality is rife in such places . . .

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 03:39 PM

Most women are one bottle of wine away from being lesbian!

CSflim · 07-02-2003, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by papermachesatan
Sparta. A soceity where most of the men were bisexual or gay:

Spartan men were fierce warriors and engaged in homosexual activities but yet did not demonstrate any the behaviors you associate with the homosexual stereotype.

I can't claim to know an awful lot about classical civilizations, but I put it to you that this apparently rapant homosexuality was due to social issues, and most importantly was not exclusive.

On genetic homosexuality. I am friends with a pair of identical twins .i.e. they have the same genetic code. One is a homosexual, the other is not. This sisuation is not unique. there are plenty of homo/hetro pairings of twins. This in itself should be evidence enough that homosexuality is not a genetically defined trait.
Your claim of having an "attracted to male" or "attracted to female", gene which "sometimes gets mixed up" is a mutation. No mutation could ever happen at a rate even close to 10% (?anyone have stats? What percentage of people are gay?)

Edit: I should also add that homosexual sex observed in primates was also non-exclusive. They were simply play-acting, in the same way that they "fight".

Also, what evidence is there for the spartan homosexuality? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just wondering how we know? From what I understand of it, it is from drawings on pottery and from classical literature. Is this correct?

Otaku · 07-02-2003, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by duckznutz
Some believe men have nipples to act as 'dummy' teats to calm infants when the female is not available.

You are correct when you state that our sex is not determined at the moment of conception and that we all start off as neither male nor female . . . but i completely disagree that homosexuality is a hard-wired situation.

Males have differing levels of oestregen and females have differing levels of testosterone . . . .

we all begin life as female. There is no question of this. Our bodies ( as men) then diverge. women continue on.

i dont think that there is a black or white situation here. Some gay men are born that way, some learn. I feel that societal conditioning plays a larger part in this than genetics.

Someone else on this board noted that a lot of gay people were "artistic" and "wealthy". I have also read that the smarter you are, the more you disregard societal conditioning, especially in sexual mores. Could it simply be that gay people ARE smarter on average than straight people??

that would put the wind up a lot of red necks eh?

CSflim · 07-02-2003, 04:28 PM

Hmmm... what duckznutz has just posted seems to backs up my proposal that homosexuality was social, and was also non-exclusive. Except that he goes so far as to suggest that physical homosexual acts didn't even occur, that it was simply male-bonding.
Again, I can't claim to know one way or the other, which is why I would be interesteding in the evidence for and against.

I also wish to clarify a point I made earlier about my repulsion towards homosexual sex. I must emphasise that I am repulsed by homosexual sex involving me. I am not repulsed by the act of homosexual sex. If a male homosexual sex scene were to come on during a movie that I was watching, while I would not be sexually aroused, I would not be "grossed out".
I know that the same is not true for many people. For many people, the mere thought of male homosexual sex is disgusting. THIS I believe is where the social distortion comes into play. That the people who are disgusted by homosexual sex are the ones who are victims of cultural conditioning. I do however believe that an adversion to finding yourself in a homosexual situation is completely natural for a hetrosexual, in the same way that a predilection to finding yourself in a hetrosexual situation is natural.

CSflim · 07-02-2003, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by duckznutz
Some believe men have nipples to act as 'dummy' teats to calm infants when the female is not available.

I really doubt the accurracy of that. It could by all means be possible, but I doubt it. I don't think any child would be fooled! Why don't we have large breasts in order to add to the illusion?

duckznutz · 07-02-2003, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
I don't think any child would be fooled!

You haven't noticed that babies and small children constantly suck on little bits of plastic + rubber 'pacifiers' or 'dummy teats'?

duckznutz · 07-03-2003, 12:08 AM

homosexuality cannot possibly be in any way inherited or hard-wired. Evolution is a slow and sometimes random process at the best of times . . . . . . . . what chance is there of a variant surviving where its modus operandi os NOT to reproduce? Makes no sense to me.

My money is on it being a 'lifestyle choice' of the wealthy, the educated, the 'enlightened', and those free from social pressures to conform to the norm.

The genetic or hard-wired argument perpetuates to mask the guilt of those who want to live the gay life but still feel it is morally wrong . . they put their hands up and say "I cant help it . . its genetic you know!". And the homophobes who cant accept that people would deliberately choose that way of life may also take comfort in the genetic hard-wired theory.

Everyone should live their lives as they please . . with pride . . . and without hurting others . . . . . . . . . no need to look for 'excuses' for the way we all choose to behave. Take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions and control your own destiny.

manalone · 07-06-2003, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
2. Funny that homosexuality has exploded in the last century along with the worlds biggest known baby boom (by that I mean a world population of 7 billion). Is it possible it is a natural effect to perhaps lower the population?

It did not explode in the last century. It just came further into the western social horizon during the Victorian period and its twisted sense of puritanism and prudish morality.

Quote:

3. Hedonism in the parlence of our times? Perhaps it is a tell-tale sign of western civilizations decline. Rome was experiencing much of the same problems as it came to a fiery end. Perhaps homosexuality is one of many societal woes? [/B]

Factually incorrect. Condemnation of Homosexuality in Roman Empire came about with serious force towards the end of the Empire and at the time of schism. It is important to note that the days of the Republic and the Empire of Ancient Greece were the real hey-days of Homosexuality.

Incidentally I would like to add that there may be a genetic factor, but to call it a defect is gross prejudice.

darksparkles · 07-06-2003, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sportsrule101
The monkey start is theory, it might prove to be correct, i didn't mean that the disease was started by humans, but it was transmitted especially early on by homo relations, along with other factors. That article is well written, but is by no means a definite athority. And in 20 years, there will more theories that might prove it right or wrong. As with any scientific data, the only way to prove it out is time, and more research.

whether it started with monkeys or not, it doesn't change the fact that its just as easy to get aids through heterosexual sex as homosexual sex.

or, should i say, hetero relations.

rodimus · 07-07-2003, 12:24 PM

personally i don't blame women that are homosexual. if i were a woman i would be too. the female body was put together sooo much better. it's like when God made woman he gave man this little extra piece of flesh and said heres the adaptor to use with this new creation of mine.

manalone · 07-07-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rodimus
personally i don't blame women that are homosexual. if i were a woman i would be too. the female body was put together sooo much better. it's like when God made woman he gave man this little extra piece of flesh and said heres the adaptor to use with this new creation of mine.

Interesting. I, for one, don't see the advantage in particular.
That's not to say I think them inferior in any way.

07-02-2003, 03:37 PM	#48 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	Papermachesatan . . I saw a tv programme about this on BBC2 about a year ago . . . . . . . . whilst they had a strong male bonding and the young males cared for the older warriors . . it was argued that this reflected the status of the males as against the vastly subservient and inferior women. There was no definate homosexual acts taking place. A bit like a modern male-only golf club where women are frowned upon and perhaps seen as second class . . . . . it does not follow that homosexuality is rife in such places . . . __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

07-02-2003, 03:39 PM	#49 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	Most women are one bottle of wine away from being lesbian! __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

07-02-2003, 04:28 PM	#52 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	Hmmm... what duckznutz has just posted seems to backs up my proposal that homosexuality was social, and was also non-exclusive. Except that he goes so far as to suggest that physical homosexual acts didn't even occur, that it was simply male-bonding. Again, I can't claim to know one way or the other, which is why I would be interesteding in the evidence for and against. I also wish to clarify a point I made earlier about my repulsion towards homosexual sex. I must emphasise that I am repulsed by homosexual sex involving me. I am not repulsed by the act of homosexual sex. If a male homosexual sex scene were to come on during a movie that I was watching, while I would not be sexually aroused, I would not be "grossed out". I know that the same is not true for many people. For many people, the mere thought of male homosexual sex is disgusting. THIS I believe is where the social distortion comes into play. That the people who are disgusted by homosexual sex are the ones who are victims of cultural conditioning. I do however believe that an adversion to finding yourself in a homosexual situation is completely natural for a hetrosexual, in the same way that a predilection to finding yourself in a hetrosexual situation is natural. __________________

07-03-2003, 12:08 AM	#55 (permalink)
duckznutz Addict Location: Brook Cottage, Lanark, Scotland	homosexuality cannot possibly be in any way inherited or hard-wired. Evolution is a slow and sometimes random process at the best of times . . . . . . . . what chance is there of a variant surviving where its modus operandi os NOT to reproduce? Makes no sense to me. My money is on it being a 'lifestyle choice' of the wealthy, the educated, the 'enlightened', and those free from social pressures to conform to the norm. The genetic or hard-wired argument perpetuates to mask the guilt of those who want to live the gay life but still feel it is morally wrong . . they put their hands up and say "I cant help it . . its genetic you know!". And the homophobes who cant accept that people would deliberately choose that way of life may also take comfort in the genetic hard-wired theory. Everyone should live their lives as they please . . with pride . . . and without hurting others . . . . . . . . . no need to look for 'excuses' for the way we all choose to behave. Take responsibility for your own thoughts and actions and control your own destiny. __________________ Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

07-02-2003, 10:41 AM	#42 (permalink)
Darkblack Banned Location: Pennsytuckia	Interesting read.

07-07-2003, 12:24 PM	#58 (permalink)
rodimus Insane	personally i don't blame women that are homosexual. if i were a woman i would be too. the female body was put together sooo much better. it's like when God made woman he gave man this little extra piece of flesh and said heres the adaptor to use with this new creation of mine.