Homosexuality; If you could choose...

Talk nerdy to me.

 

Where's the pill that gives people a smooth spot so they can focus on more important shit like fixing taxes and healthcare and space travel?

 

Yeah. The victorians didnt have any sex at all, and they were real assholes to brownskinned people. But they also had the industrial revolution and kicked other peoples asses. That pent up frustration led to a lot of advancements.

 

I evolved into my adult self,being with men. It was what was expected of me. I actually am quite fond of sex with men. The thing is, I find being in relationships with men utterly intolerable. I had not been with women, but found the idea neither desirable nor intolerable. But then, I felt the same way about being in sexual relationships with men. I am not, in my opinion, truly a lesbian, and I do not find myself to be truly bisexual either, as I'm not overly interested in sex with either men OR women.
Were there a pill to take to gain clarity of direction down one path or another, I would not be interested in taking it. I am currently in a relationship with a woman. It is difficult at best because of my apparent inability to get along with ANYONE in close quarters for any length of time, and that is nothing sexual or genetic, that's just "me"

 

I'm no scientist, but I've suspected for some time that there might be a connection of some kind between homosexual behavior, which, as stated, will inevitably result in less reproduction of the species overall, and overpopulation in said species—as though environmental and genetically mutative (is that even a word?) factors come together to influence human sexuality so as to keep the population from reproducing beyond what its containing environment can handle. Kind of like the opposite of the sex switching mentioned in Jurassic Park that led to a once exclusively female population being able to reproduce.

But again, I'm no scientist... Just a hopeless romantic with an active imagination. And little, if any, desire to reproduce.

 

Not quite. There are a lot of theories to homosexuality and why it DOESN'T diet out. One that I think has a lot of merit is that the traits that when combined with the right gestational environment make someone a homosexual, can make someone MORE fit. Basically homosexuality is too much of a good thing.

This can be seen with autism, which is much higher in families where one parent is an engineer, and VERY high in families where both are engineers. The same mental make up that makes a good engineer seems to backfire when there is "too much" of it.

Obviously "too much" isn't a scientific way of looking at it but until we isolate the genes involved and the gestational factors, both of which matter for homosexuality, it will have to do.

 

Oh holy hell...DaddySquirrel is an Engineer. Hopefully my awesome genes counter act his awkward genes.

 

Wasn't there something a while back about index finger length and homosexuality? Didn't it have something to do with testosterone exposure while in the womb? I remember a lot of discussion about Janet Reno during that time.

 

First, I no longer have my source material handy, and I'm not going to try to dig it up, so just take this on the informal conversation level.

There is a definite genetic component to homosexuality. While I don't recall the incidence of homosexuality in fraternal twins where one was gay, it was substantially less than that in identical twins raised apart where one was gay. For them the chance of both being homosexual was 50%. What this implies is a strong genetic component.

Secondly gestational components matter too. It seems womens under times of high stress produce more homosexual babies. There were a LOT born in Europe right after and during WWII, from mothers in cities which were bombed while they were pregnant, which is what triggered this idea. Also the more male babies a mother has the greater chance of one of the subsequent boys being homosexual. The first born has less of a chance of being homosexual than the last (male). As for what is causing it in these circumstances, there are theories, but only guesses really. One of the interesting things in all this btw, is how little research seems to be done on lesbianism, no one seems to care there....

Anyways there seems to be a genetic component, gene penetrance component and gestational one. In other words they will never find a "gay gene" only a "greater chance of being gay gene", and most likely more than one gene.

The more fit is Darwinian fitness, aka more babies. The current thought is that "gay genes" may well increase fertility in female children, even if occasionally they make a homosexual male one. If the math works out in terms of "child loss vrs children gained" in terms of fitness than it could explain why homosexuality genes don't die out and in fact seem to be pretty steady in the population.

Theories about group selection, and overpopulation and the like all seem good on paper, but most group selection idea have been shot down in favor of a more selfish gene approach.

 

Do you really want me to derail your thread right now? Cause I spend hours, nay, EONS thinking about how good the sex must've been before 1100 when they decided math is wrong and to get new and stupid laws in the middle east. Shit was dope when we was fucking yo!

 

The thing is, from my understanding of history, people were always fucking. Except the vickies got a little weird, and then the puritanical wave that enveloped America in the twentieth century.

 

bad porn.

 

um, yeah, but not victorian porn. it still stinks.
--- merged: Nov 26, 2013 at 8:12 PM ---
of course, I am referring mostly to their written porn. but it wasn't a particularly good time for photography, either.

 

They just looked so awkward about it. Penises pointing in the general direction of things. Girls bent over in untenable positions. I don't buy it.

 

But didn't a lot of portrait photography look kind of awkward back then? I'm thinking the ones taking those were probably on the lower end of the skill set, considering its reputation back then. And the posing and exposure. I heard that for portraits nack then people needed to have props to hold them steady because of the long exposure time.