The dominant sexual orientation has to be heterosexual, or the species
would die out.
The persistent homosexual orientation, in our species, reveals that our
genome is an amalgamation of functions and subroutines. Sometimes a
person's sex and gender don't match up -- that's ok.
Just think of homosexuality as another expression (mode) of being human. And being
human, it must be given proper esteem.
I guess what I'm saying is homosexuality is genetic.
Furthermore, our need for sex is on par with our need for food. So, put a bunch of men
in a cage or a bunch of women in a cage plus some time, and some of them will have sex
with each other. Even though they know they are of the same sex.
This is ok too, because sex is built into us. Anything humans do is "human behavior".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incorrect. The only thing for the species to remain viable is that births equal or exceed deaths. How that's accomplished is irrelevant. It does not require constant and unwavering heterosexual behavior to accomplish that goal.The dominant sexual orientation has to be heterosexual, or the species
would die out.
I agree with you. Our differences appear mostly to be with semantics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, our need for sex is on par with our need for food.
As a fat virgin i beg to differ.
|
Sexual orientation - genetics vs. environment vs. choice
There’s the “sex before eight, or else it's too late” notion that hetero males may switch teams, if presented early opportunities.
newborn babies are known to masturbate
Fetuses too.
The dominant sexual orientation has to be heterosexual, or the species would die out.
There’s artificial insemination. And perhaps cloning?
Hey BigNorseWolf.
I was surprised to see you type this ...
While I generally "lean forward" I do hold a fair number of less than politically correct ideas.
I've read more than once that some studies have shown it's the reverse.
Its quite possible neither or both or true. There's more than one way to skin a cat, there's more than one way to arrive at one of the loose collection of behaviors we call homosexuality.
So the thinking goes, HIGH levels of androgens "over-masculinize" males (such that "mere" girls don't work as far as attraction goes, only BUTCH, UBER-Manly-man-MEN will do); females are biased towards being "more-masculine" (hence they "naturally go for girls," and end up lesbians).
[idle speculation] Hmmm I wonder if the top/bottom thing would be genetic. One mechanism for 1 one mechanism for the other [/on to slightly less idle speculation]
And I've never, ever read (other than this post) that a woman could "develop a resistance" to testosterone.
Wiki on the hypothesis] Wiki on birth order and orientation
I may have been incorrect in thinking it was a reaction to the testosterone itself. Reading this i don't think I understand the proposed mechanism as well as I'd like, I'll take another crack at it when I'm more caffinated.
I'm not sure I'd want to read a study testing that hypothesis, either. Because ... well I think I'm Chaotic Good and want to stay that way. :D
Nothing wrong with accepting a trend as long as you realize that the trend doesn't apply to every individual.
The default set of a human body (and the brain) is female. If you don't do anything to it it grows into a girl.
The dominant sexual orientation has to be heterosexual, or the species would die out.There’s artificial insemination. And perhaps cloning?
Or just normal sex with people you're not really into.
When homosexuality was even more discriminated against than it is today, to the point of being illegal, many homosexuals married and had children and had sex for fun on the side.
Being homosexual does not mean incapable of sex with the opposite sex. All homosexual females and most (all?) males are able to have reproductive sex. They may not want to and they may not enjoy it. To put it bluntly, being a lesbian doesn't keep you from being raped. Men are a little more difficult, since they do have to orgasm, but sufficient physical stimulation will do that for most.
It's quite possible to imagine a species that only does hetero sex for reproduction, maybe only in an estrus period, but uses homosexual activity for pleasure and social bonding. Someone's probably written a SF novel with that premise.
See Robert J. Sawher's Neanderthal Parallax Trilogy. The title of the first volume is Hominids. The Neanderthals in those books have one mate of the same sex and one of the opposite sex, and they spend about 3/4 of their time with the mate of the same sex. Visits to the opposite sex partners are timed so that pregnancy is only possible once every ten years or so.
A scifi book that dealt with gender roles and sexuality that I liked was The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursala K. LeGuin. It was a species of humanoids that only gained a gender during a mutual mating period with another individual, they would grow close and somehow their bodies would mutually decide who should be what. I believe some monogamous couples were described as even switching roles more than once.
I can't see 95+ percent of a species, much less all species, choosing a heterosexual orientation without a pretty large basis in biology. Especially when you consider the evolutionary benefits of well... reproducing.
That is a very interesting point.
I don't want to read any study where women are injected with large amounts of testosterone / androgens in order to determine the gender bias of their potential offspring (whether the women agree to participate in the study or not).
Its not what happened.
I think sometimes if an individual doesn't b!%$~ about how things are "trending," they become co-conspirators to the trend. And sometimes "trends" steamroll folks, crush them, make them hurt.
In public speaking class the professor was objecting to a political cartoon in the school newspaper. There was a guy and a girl in the bar and the girl says "Whats your major?" The guy in question was large man with an enormous beard holding an ax with the name of the school on it.
Teacher asked why i wasn't bothered about it. I picked up the paper, held it next to me .... i could have posed for the picture.
Denying that a trend exists in the name of political correctness is just silly. People should be able to be themselves without having to either conform to OR buck a trend. You don't fit the stereotype? Fine don't. You fit it? Embrace it. If someone wants to know why they feel a certain way I think a little self knowledge is a heck of a lot more helpful than telling someone that their feelings are bad or wrong.
I won't accept any "trends" I find morally objectional, and I'll complain about them when I see them.
What precisely is the moral dimension you're objecting to here? I haven't been hinting at one and hell, I don't see one.
I didn't check the links you offered. If you've read them and still can type "it's quite possible neither or both or true," I don't...Yeah, well I know that. So again, the onus is on you, you offered the hypothesis.
And how am I supposed to meet said onus if you won't look at anything I link to? Don't give me flack about not having enough evidence to tentatively hold a position if you have no idea what the evidence is.
I'm not going to pretend that its THE answer because I don't think there is just one answer. Genetics is complicated, and tossing in embryology and sociology is going to leave you with multiple avenues of getting from point A to point B. I think this one fits the evidence and explains a few things. If you think it doesn't tell me why.
There’s artificial insemination. And perhaps cloning?
They're a pretty insignificant factor in our overall reproduction
levels. Also our genetics haven't changed a heck of a lot in the last 50,000 years. We're still running around with DNA meant to survive in small hunter gatherer groups. Even if you had free cloning vats tommorow, we'd still have the same DNA.If sexual orientation is genetic a heterosexual orientation will eventually become dominant.
Who is going to have more kids? The heterosexual couples obviously. A chance encounter under unusual circumstances might produce a child or two, whereas those with an active sex drive will consistently produce 8 or so kids.
If the parents are heterosexual, it increases the chances that the kids are heterosexual, and it increases the chance that they'll reproduce, spreading heterosexuality throughout the gene pool.
Differential reproduction doesn't have to mean doing anything to your competition. Sometimes you just outbreed them.
There’s artificial insemination. And perhaps cloning?They're a pretty insignificant factor in our overall reproduction
levels. Also our genetics haven't changed a heck of a lot in the last 50,000 years. We're still running around with DNA meant to survive in small hunter gatherer groups. Even if you had free cloning vats tommorow, we'd still have the same DNA.If sexual orientation is genetic a heterosexual orientation will eventually become dominant.
Who is going to have more kids? The heterosexual couples obviously. A chance encounter under unusual circumstances might produce a child or two, whereas those with an active sex drive will consistently produce 8 or so kids.
If the parents are heterosexual, it increases the chances that the kids are heterosexual, and it increases the chance that they'll reproduce, spreading heterosexuality throughout the gene pool.
Differential reproduction doesn't have to mean doing anything to your competition. Sometimes you just outbreed them.
This raises a few questions though:
Homosexuality has been with us as long as we've making laws (possibly predating writing even), although heterosexual orientation has to my eye always been dominant. That may suggest that sexual orientation isn't genetic, but I'm not allowed to in fringe on someone's rights simply because the right they wish to exercise isn't genetic.
Who is going to have more kids? How do you classify someone with such a strong sex drive that they make an effort to have sex every single night regardless of partner's sex vs a solely heterosexual person who has sex once a month? In such a case the genetically bisexual male could well out breed the genetically heterosexual one.
This raises a few questions though:
Excellent!
Homosexuality has been with us as long as we've making laws (possibly predating writing even), although heterosexual orientation has to my eye always been dominant. That may suggest that sexual orientation isn't genetic, but I'm not allowed to in fringe on someone's rights simply because the right they wish to exercise isn't genetic.
Nope. Doesn't matter one whit as far as rights go. It does undermine some of the more common arguments against their rights however.
Who is going to have more kids? How do you classify someone with such a strong sex drive that they make an effort to have sex every single night regardless of partner's sex vs a solely heterosexual person who has sex once a month? In such a case the genetically bisexual male could well out breed the genetically heterosexual one.
Right, but he won't outbreed someone that's strictly heterosexual that's having sex as often, if for no other reason than he can't be in two places at once. Unless the drive is linked with the bisexual orientation its not going to provide any advantage. Given that the male drive is set to "high" already I don't know how much advantage there is in going higher anyway.
Homosexuality has been with us for as long as there has been different sexes to be homosexual about. Likely this started with some early species of proto-fish. Don't give me any "possibly predating writing even". Homosexuality and bisexuality are conditions brought about as a side effect of a very strong selection for heterosexuality - no complex machinery is ever perfect in its execution, and our mechanism to select for heterosexuality is no exception. It's about a few percent of the population, which speaks volumes about how harshly selected for it must be. You do not inherit genes that say you are going to be homosexual, you inherit genes that say you will have a 4% likelihood of being homosexual (or whatever percentage). Randomness is a central force for how our brains get wired during fetal development and later.
You do not inherit genes that say you are going to be homosexual, you inherit genes that say you will have a 4% likelihood of being homosexual (or whatever percentage). Randomness is a central force for how our brains get wired during fetal development and later.
Or you have a 4% chance of inheriting genes that will give you a 100% likelihood of being homosexual, or you have an 8% chance of genes that will give you a 50% chance of being homosexual or... that's assuming its even in the genes all the time.
You missed my point, BNW. You get the genes you get, and the only relevant percentage there is 50%, the probability a certain allele gets expressed. Once the DNA string is finished, you have the entirety of the tables you will need to "roll on" to see your traits. There are no genes that give a 100% probability of gayness, or they would already have been found. As for whether it's in the genes: It's so harshly one-sided in the population that any other explanation sounds pretty useless to me.
You missed my point, BNW. You get the genes you get, and the only relevant percentage there is 50%, the probability a certain allele gets expressed.
That's assuming that its something like one of mendels pea plants, which would be very surprising. You can't know what the odds are of an allele being expressed without knowing what that allele is and how it works.
Dwarfism(Achondroplasia) for example, will be expressed 100% of the time that the gene is present in an individual.
Once the DNA string is finished, you have the entirety of the tables you will need to "roll on" to see your traits. There are no genes that give a 100% probability of gayness or they would already have been found.
What if its 50 or 100 genes involved? We haven't had any kind of broad DNA sampling of human beings, much less any way to correlate the genes to something that people often lie about such as sexual orientation.
If we were doing it out i would say you'd have to roll once to get your genes, and then said genes would involved a different roll as you went through life.
As for whether it's in the genes: It's so harshly one-sided in the population that any other explanation sounds pretty useless to me.
Take a look at the older brother hypothesis. I think its a viable, non genetic mechanism and would be something you're born with just as surely as your genes. Its claiming to account for roughly 15% of male homosexuality. Even if you don't buy it, it shows a lot of the different paths biology can take to get the same results. It doesn't have to be the genes, or it can be genes that you'd never expect.
BNW-- My point was, what if the sex drive that causes a greater chance to breed has the direct effect of bisexuality? The only time I've ever heard of a test being done (totally anecdotal, but This American Life measured the testosterone level of the people working in the office) it was the gay dudes who had the most testoterone.
Sissyl-- Early species of fish predate writing, I don't see what you're yelling about. Seriously though, I'm not saying you're wrong, I was just pointing out that homosexuality has been documented for as long as there's been documentation.
Personally, given the choice of genetics vs. environment vs. choice, I call co-factors. Yes, that means I'm straight owing to co-factors rather than because I'm some ideal version of a man; I'm fine with that.
And I call randomness. Sadly, I seem to be pretty much alone in this. As for genetic expression, you get one allele from your mom and one from your dad. Of these, one or the other gets chosen, 50%. And the very fact that no gene gives a 100% gayness means that it's not monogenetically inherited (such as Huntington's chorea). The older brother hypothesis is by no means uncontested, other studies have not found a correlation.
The genetic code does not and can not contain every bit of information needed to build every little complexity of the human body. 30000 genes is not nearly enough. Everything else, then, is random chance. For proof, check out the fur colour patterns of clones cats.
And I call randomness. Sadly, I seem to be pretty much alone in this.
I'm really asking this, not being snarky: how are co-factors and randomness mutually exclusive? It seems to me that if you saying randomness rather than nature, nurture or choice, you're saying there are co-factors. Have I got that wrong?
(If it's your opinion that homosexuality is a fact of life these days and this conversation might as well be about handedness, I'd agree with that too.)
And I call randomness. Sadly, I seem to be pretty much alone in this. As for genetic expression, you get one allele from your mom and one from your dad. Of these, one or the other gets chosen, 50%.
No, You get both. One from mom and one from dad. How they interact depends on what they are. Sometimes one is dominant and one is recesive (such as growth in pea plants), sometimes they act together, such as having a red colored flower in pea plants. If you have the white gene from both parents the flower will be white. If you have the red gene from both parents the flower will be red. If you have a red gene from mom and a white gene from dad (or viceversa) then the flower will be pink.
And the very fact that no gene gives a 100% gayness means that it's not monogenetically inherited (such as Huntington's chorea). The older brother hypothesis is by no means uncontested, other studies have not found a correlation.
If we want to discuss things that aren't uncontested this would be a VERY short thread. The contesting study was done with fraternal twins, which would just complicate matters.
BNW-- My point was, what if the sex drive that causes a greater chance to breed has the direct effect of bisexuality?
How does it cause a greater chance? By causing a greater desire?
That would be bi... or omnixexuality, which would be a different mechanism from homosexuality I think. Unless of course you're saying that there's one group of genes set to "male" one set to "female" but if you get both you get a bisexual with an increased sex drive?
The only time I've ever heard of a test being done (totally anecdotal, but This American Life measured the testosterone level of the people working in the office) it was the gay dudes who had the most testoterone.
That doesn't help establish what their testosterone levels were in the womb (or how much of said of said testosterone was getting through the cells)
The genetic code does not and can not contain every bit of information needed to build every little complexity of the human body. 30000 genes is not nearly enough. Everything else, then, is random chance. For proof, check out the fur colour patterns of clones cats.
Not exactly random chance there, but other biological and exogenous factors at play in gene expression. Every gene once transcribed into an RNA sequence can then produce many multiple versions of an end-product protein - something called alternative splicing, which depends on many things also going on in the cell at the time, or extraneous factors.
For instance, IIRC the genes responsible for color coding of the "points" in seal point siamese cats are temperature dependent, so even in a case of two clones with identical DNA (ignoring things like the random shuffling of the MHC here for purposes of "identical"), they aren't going to look alike.
Things can turn genes on and off, and other factors can influence how a given gene is expressed. But for the purposes of the current discussion, most of the brain architecture involved in sexual orientation and gender identity appears to be fixed during gestation, rather than changing after birth as a result of social or other factors. At least that's where the current research points.
The genetic code does not and can not contain every bit of information needed to build every little complexity of the human body. 30000 genes is not nearly enough. Everything else, then, is random chance. For proof, check out the fur colour patterns of clones cats.
Those genes are only one factor though. RNA is a whole nother thing that is producing more complexity. If DNA gives you X possibilities, RNA is the exponent. For example, studies on extremely long lived and healthy humans has shown that a very large number of people have the proper genes, but they are only active in a small number of people. If biologist can figure out how to safely activate them in the rest of us, we could add 20-30 years to the average lifespan.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a gene that makes you, statistically, 900% more likely to commit a violent crime, and reduces your life expectancy by about 7%. We don't want to de-activate it, though. It's called a Y chromosome.
I've heard the theory that bisexuality is just the result of a higher sex drive, but I don't think I've ever seen anything in support of it.
That sounds like an unfounded hypothesis rather than a theory, really. I know at least one person that can be attracted to all genders and sexes but only rarely has any sexual interest at all. And one of my least sexually active periods was as bisexual.
I've heard the theory that bisexuality is just the result of a higher sex drive, but I don't think I've ever seen anything in support of it.That sounds like an unfounded hypothesis rather than a theory, really. I know at least one person that can be attracted to all genders and sexes but only rarely has any sexual interest at all. And one of my least sexually active periods was as bisexual.
I certainly wasn't offering any support of said hypothesis, just offering a counter example to "genetic homosexual preference will definitionally be lost in one generation."
As I said before, I think it's co-factors; I'm not even sure that two people sharing the same sexual preference share it for the same reasons, if you see what I mean. I am sure that at this point homosexuals deserve the same legal rights as the rest of us. After that the conversation gets hypothetical and, no insult, has little effect on my life.