Further logic would tell you that I was talking about the induvidual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Printable View
Further logic would tell you that I was talking about the induvidual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazul
Well, the natural homosexuals are more of asexuals, and they contribute with much as "drones". Humans were a well developed animal and well developed animals don't use that many "drones". However homosexuals which are extremely over-sexualized contribute less in nature, that's true. Which makes me think today's homosexuals are often culture-based, based on certain forms of hormone pollution, mainly caused by contraceptive pills, and hormone plasters, and simply the oppression of homosexuals throughout history. The homosexuals that nature keeps are, as I said, half-asexual. Afaik Da Vinci, Newton and Turing were half asexual, and the homosexuality was more love than sex. A homosexuality which involves a lot of sex has little function in nature, and is half abnormal (notice my definition of the word, which is milder than the normal definition) according to biological data, but, again, that doesn't justify oppression of them in any way whatsoever. If you dislike them, opression of them will only make them grow in numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I read a book where the author thought homosexuals had the benefit of easier and earlier acces to sex, which would improve their sexual abilities, which could improve his chances with women too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
He actually showed some pretty interesting statistics, about how very few people are really *exclusively* homosexual, and how so called homosexuals quite often have as many children as the average heterosexual, and if they don't, they tend to have childeren earlier (which gives a definite benefit in the gene war).
sexual abilities is something culture has invented. Pre civilization, the choice of who to do it with mattered more, and the more relaxed and taboo-free view on sex meant both men and women were more relaxed and less nervous, which meant a lot to abilities at making sex enjoyable without needing a lot of practise whose main purpose is to get more relaxed and know what you want. So I don't buy the explanation of that author. Apart from learning to relax more you also learn what the other part likes, but if you're a homosexual having sex with someone else who doesn't want it, you'll not get any good indications on which thinks are appreciated and which aren't, because nothing is appreciated, and thus practising on the same sex teaches you nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
His statistics about few exclusive homosexuals doesn't say bi is favored over hetero by evolution, but that church and other oppression means that of the homosexuals, those who are also bi survive easier than those who are purely homo. Which probably means the amount of pure homosexuals we have nowadays is about the number that's normal to get from new mutations for a population of humans which suffers from no oppression, while the bi:s have been created by the oppression.
Also, in our overly taboo-filled society were sex is almost considered sin, those who are very sexualized may become bisexual to satisfy their strong urges until they get a chance at the real thing (this principle has been studied in many places where men are isolated from women, and vice versa). Therefore, those bi that get children early became bi because they were a little over-sexualized and the type that gets children early, rather than being bi and thus getting children earlier. The author you speak of uses a reversed causality.
Among any animal species, what isn't most benefitial for survival isn't implemented by every individual. It's normal to have abnormalities from an imaginary "perfect" behavior and functionality, as long as it doesn't directly hurt others much. A mostly asexual form of homosexuality doesn't hurt the flock much, but most other forms are creations resulting from oppression, undeliberate cultural effects and similar.
I'm not sure we can say a lot of what happened pre-civilization.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
I don't find his views on 'practice' all too convinving either, allthough, it does help if you at least discover how your own body works ~:)
I never said that. He actually claimed homosexuality was a byproduct of bisexuality (he made a comparison with sickle cell amenia). I don't buy that either.Quote:
His statistics about few exclusive homosexuals doesn't say bi is favored over hetero by evolution,
~:confused: I don't really understand what you mean here.Quote:
but that church and other oppression means that of the homosexuals, those who are also bi survive easier than those who are purely homo.
My 'theory' is that because homosexuality was represeed or not accepted as a lifestyle choice (but tolerated as an occasional excess) homosexuality has continued to survive.
Then the claim that homosexuality was genetic (at least partly) wouldn't make sense. And mutations would happen an awful lot. And a lot of different mutations would have a similar effect.Quote:
Which probably means the amount of pure homosexuals we have nowadays is about the number that's normal to get from new mutations for a population of humans which suffers from no oppression,
It's silly to think homosexuality in 5% of the human population is created purely by mutations imho...
You don't believe in 'natural' bi's ?Quote:
while the bi:s have been created by the oppression.
To be fair, it seems quite human to have sexual taboos. A few societies don't have any, but the great majority do have many. We as westerners often get the wrong impression observing, for instance, an African tribe. Their being naked has nothing to do with sex, but we naturally assume that because they are naked, they would have no taboos.Quote:
Also, in our overly taboo-filled society were sex is almost considered sin,
Interesting point, it explains 'homosexual' behaviour amongst kids, in certain cases, but it doesn't really explain why adult people in normal society still feel to need to sleep with people of their own gender.Quote:
those who are very sexualized may become bisexual to satisfy their strong urges until they get a chance at the real thing (this principle has been studied in many places where men are isolated from women, and vice versa).
He proposed more of a spiral theory actually. Those who are gay/bi have easier access to partners, start having sex earlier, experiment earlier, with girls too and knock them up earlier. The question is whether they are over-sexualized or whether they have just had the chance to develop earlier.Quote:
Therefore, those bi that get children early became bi because they were a little over-sexualized and the type that gets children early, rather than being bi and thus getting children earlier. The author you speak of uses a reversed causality.
Sure, but one that would impeed reproduction ? Those genes should disappear out of the gene pool quite fast, if not immediately.Quote:
Among any animal species, what isn't most benefitial for survival isn't implemented by every individual. It's normal to have abnormalities from an imaginary "perfect" behavior and functionality, as long as it doesn't directly hurt others much.
Meh, the asexual form might also be the result of culture and/or oppresion, it's hard to seperate cause and effect in social studies.Quote:
A mostly asexual form of homosexuality doesn't hurt the flock much, but most other forms are creations resulting from oppression, undeliberate cultural effects and similar.
I realized in one of your quotes from my post that I had made a typo...
"isn't most benefitial for survival" should be "is most benefitial for survival"
Judging from your post, I think we agree mostly