 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I think that this is a difficult point that balances on how we define "heterosexual" and "homosexual"? I am heterosexual, I have no interest in sex with another male. I think thats how most people understand the term. By the same standard, I expect that a (male) homosexual would have no interest in sex with a women, ergo non-breeding.
I agree that there are likely to be many homosexuals in our society that do in fact have progeny and that for some the distinction between hetero- and homosexual is blurred. The question for me is how many of those people should be defined as "homosexuals"?
Thats what I refered to when I said previously "Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number, it would be higher than 3%." |
The point I was making was that all of those men were homosexuals when they were married and sired children. They married out of social and familial pressure and expectation, not to mention their own self-delusion. Again, there is vastly more compulsion to be straight in society than to be gay, your unfortunate friend's experience notwithstanding. I'd like to point out that it seems to me that kid was never homosexual, but rather was coerced through peer pressure into doing something that you could tell he did not want to do. This is not an example of someone's actual orientation shifting, in my opinion.
Your point about lesbians is valid, as I've frequently gotten in lesbo hot water for saying I think a comparatively large number of them are faux lesbians. You refer to "fluid sexuality" in women, and while I can see that as being somewhat true, I also think a large part of it is just that women enjoy much more leeway from society to be sensual creatures. Hell, how many times have I seen heterosexual men desiring to see lesbians in action? So women are much more free to experiment, and I think many more predominately heterosexual women experiment than men do.
Were societal attitudes towards sexuality a lot less repressed, especially as far as men were concerned, I think there would be a lot more male heterosexuals who experimented. This is borne out by history, as we can see in Greek and Roman cultures. However, I think there would still be significant numbers of exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual people.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 06-08-2003 at 03:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Boris:
Common in numbers or common in proportion? There are many fewer homosexual people than heterosexuals, so you have to take this into account when determining the shifts.
For example, suppose we have a sample of 1000 men, 100 of whom are homosexual. If 10 of the homosexuals shift the other way, that amounts to 10% of the entire gay population. Going the other way, suppose we have 90 heterosexual men become gay, we have exactly the same proportion, 10% making the shift.
Secondly, all surveys will be self-reporting, so you have the problem of a concrete definition of homosexual. One person's idea may differ from another's. |
Considering that pretty much all homosexuals are going to have at first been "heterosexual," I don't think even proportionally the numbers will balance out. The point was an actual change in orientation (which is assuredly extremely rare, if possible), but a change in self-perceived orientation. Society's presumption of heterosexuality makes people straight by default, so gays have to go through the coming out process.
Most of the in-depth surveys I've seen, although they have been few, do go to the lengths to actually define the orientations (i.e., "exclusively same-sex," "predominately same-sex," etc.). Again, however, any verbal survey neglects the significant number of people who are in either closeted or in denial.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:30
|
|
Time for big D's offensive post of the day
I find it strange that gay people like to over-inflate the percentage of gay people. Is that to make your behaviour look a little more normal? Sorry, ain't goin' to happen.
I have only knew 1 person who was gay. And yes he was in the navy- he got out though. Not for being gay, but because he was crazy or something. Psych discharges are not uncommon. In fact he was a roommate of ours for a while. As a joke my roomates put in a gay video of his into my VCR.  . Didn't bother me. I have no problem watching videos of guys ass ****ing each other.
Although when I was a kid I knew a kid who probably grew up to be gay. He always wanted to take baths with me, and play games where we ended up naked. I didn't think that was strange at the time.
And yes being gay is being strange. Face it, the nation will not turn into a gay majority anytime soon. you can believe in closeted homos all you want, but the number isn't that high.
And most gays do not start out hetero. I've seen many interviews where they said they knew they were different even when they were like 10 years old. Ellen Degeneres is a good example. She knew she was different. Now women like her did make an attempt at having sex with men. But does that make them hetero? No, it's a pathetic attempt at trying to be normal. Forcing yourself to do heterosexual acts does not make you heterosexual. You have to want to do them.
What I don't get is the supposedly gay men that get off inside women and produce babies. If they can manage to get off inside a woman, they are bisexual at most. Despite what they may say. They probably only say they are gay, so their gay partner doesn't get fearful that his partner will cheat on him with a woman. I have trouble believing a guy would marry a woman he was not attracted to. That's bullshit.
It's time for you all to fess up, and admit you are less than 10% of the population. Areas such as Bum****, Iowa don't have thousands of closeted gays running around. What happens is any gay person in that shithole town, moves to the big city where they are more accepted. They aren't going to stay somwhere they aren't accepted. So what happens is you get a bigger concentration of gays in certain cities such as San fransisco, LA, new York, and Chicago. But some cities such as Charleston, SC only had one gay club. And it was only gay some nights a week. Trust me, if there was a demand, more clubs would open. Even my city which has thousands of bars, only has a few gay bars (I have been in most of them).
It's funny how gay bars in my city can get away with showing gay pornos, but if a straight bar showed straight pornos that would be sexual harrassment and violate lewd laws and such.
And don't ask me why I was in gay clubs. I have my reasons (work being one of them- yes you guessed it. I'm male prostitute )
and like Che said, many straight people attend gay pride parades. Hell some straight people go just to see the outlandish costumes and acts the gay people do on the floats.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dis
|
|
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
So because the majority of Germans supported Hitler's war policies, his war policies were normal?  |
they were normal to the german population at the time. you are correct sir.
a society's attitudes towards normal can shift of course. As what happened in germany after the war.
but in this case we are dealing with raw numbers. Yes it is normal for less than 10% of the population to be gay. There is nothing wrong with that.
But you have to admit, most people are not gay, and will never be gay.
So what is normal is that the fact the small percentage of the population is gay. but with respect to the population as a whole, that is not normal. But it happens. There is nothing wrong with that.
P.S. below is the definition of normal.
nor·mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nôrml)
adj.
Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Abbr. n or N Chemistry.
Designating a solution having one gram equivalent weight of solute per liter of solution.
Designating an aliphatic hydrocarbon having a straight and unbranched chain of carbon atoms.
Mathematics.
Being at right angles; perpendicular.
Perpendicular to the direction of a tangent line to a curve or a tangent plane to a surface.
Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
Free from mental illness; sane.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I have no need to do so since the question is irrelevant to me. I dont give a **** what makes anyones **** hard  . It's none of my business.
If I went by the proportion of my friends who are gay I'd have to give an answer like Wittlich but I dont believe the 10% number. From a biological standpoint, for 10% of a mammalian population to be 'non-breeding', it would require a noticable advantage for the species to maintain such a population. Unless you're gonna tell me that gays have hidden superpowers, I'm afraid that it doesnt make sense. Of course if you included bisexuals and adolescents who may be unsure of their orientation in the number it would be higher than 3%. |
In many mammalian species, including a number of primates, the percentage of males who manage to breed is less than one third. In these species dominant males acquire social/family groups around them and at least atempt to prevent other males from breeding with their females. In the primate world such groups typically consist of an alpha male, 2 to 4 beta males, 4 to 8 females and a number of juveniles and adolescents. Judging from the ratio of skeletons at archaeological sites early hominids had a similar organization, but at some point Homo ergaster seems to have come up with
the idea of allowing each male keep one mate. This is hypothesized based on the distribution of skeletons at digs. Monogamy seems to have caught on quickly, probably because it allowed groups to have a larger component of adult males, thereby giving them an advantage in competition for choice territory. Thus the phenomenon of giving each male in the species an opportunity to mate is actually not that common, and in the case of our species is really a specific survival strategy unique to our condition.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In many mammalian species, including a number of primates, the percentage of males who manage to breed is less than one third. In these species dominant males acquire social/family groups around them and at least atempt to prevent other males from breeding with their females. In the primate world such groups typically consist of an alpha male, 2 to 4 beta males, 4 to 8 females and a number of juveniles and adolescents. Judging from the ratio of skeletons at archaeological sites early hominids had a similar organization, but at some point Homo ergaster seems to have come up with the idea of allowing each male keep one mate. This is hypothesized based on the distribution of skeletons at digs. Monogamy seems to have caught on quickly, probably because it allowed groups to have a larger component of adult males, thereby giving them an advantage in competition for choice territory. Thus the phenomenon of giving each male in the species an opportunity to mate is actually not that common, and in the case of our species is really a specific survival strategy unique to our condition. |
An interesting point, especially in the light of the 'free-sex'-like society of the bonobos. Under similar conditions, there would be little selective pressure at the species level to act on the 'homosexual genes' (if they exist). There would still be a much slower "weeding-out" process of such genes at an individual level (if there is no progeny) unless the 'sexuality genes' were the target of a mutational process.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2003 00:56
what are you implying about my long stints at sea? 
After 13+ years together, it's cheaper to keep him. 
|