It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evolutionary dynamics of male homosexuality.

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by WickedStar

I wanted to add this from a thread that I recently posted on concerning the study of female and male hetero and homo brains.

Originally posted by WickedStar
[...] I also wanted to add that heterosexuals are often prone to jump to the conclusion (as we have witnessed here) that because two homosexuals can not reproduce we are therefore unnatural. However, if reproduction was the sole issue here then humans would have absolutely no need for the "pleasurable orgasm." Our mating would be driven by instinct alone without the need of pleasure - as is witnessed in non-mammalian animals.

Science has proven that mammalian females do experience uterine and vaginal contractions considered analogous to the female pleasure response; however, we can never be certain of the extent to which female mammals "enjoy" intercourse. If the ruckus from my outdoor cat "gigi" is any indication - my bet is that she doesn't enjoy herself at all.

More to the point - we know that male mammals, such as dolphins and a few other species of monkeys do seem to enjoy the act of ejaculation as they have been spotted - in the wild - engaging in non-reproductive ejaculatory behavior.
Where am I going you ask? Well, to assume that homosexual sex is in some way unnatural is to suggest that the "receiver" is incapable of experiencing pleasure from the experience. If it wasn't enjoyable, receivers or "bottoms" would not engage in the act. However, we know that countless homosexual men do engage and do so willingly - why? Male sexual physiology is not solely limited to the brain, testes and phallus - there is another organ called the Prostate which when stimulated properly will deliver an orgasm likened to the "tidal wave" multiple orgasm described by countless women. The Prostate is the Male G-Spot. Furthermore, studies have shown that men who engage in prostate massage to facilitate a prostate orgasm suffer from less prostate disorders including cancer, inflammation and BPH. And before you ask - the only way to facilitate a prostate orgasm is through the anus (which when stimulated is also capable of delivering plenty of pleasure.)

So, not only is homosexual sex enjoyable but also healthful.

I think what really drives men up the wall about this subject is that everyman has ( at one point in his life) played around with those nether parts and he knows how much he enjoyed it. Because males tend to be the more pleasure seeking of the two sexes it stands to reason that he'd associate the pleasure he experienced with homosexuality. Because of the taboo nature of homosexuality he would rail against it immediately and denigrate those he has more in common with than he'd like.

[edit on 6/22/08 by WickedStar]

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:06 PM
Ok, please listen up.
For all the people who are posting saying that homosexuality is a "choice":
You are on the wrong thread!
This thread is for people who know or believe that their sexual orientation is no more of their choosing than what color eyes they have. And who are looking for scientific data and an intelligent debate.
So if you are a gay basher or just plain disagree with the above premise, please start you own thread and hate away.

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:12 PM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Ok, please listen up.
For all the people who are posting saying that homosexuality is a "choice":
You are on the wrong thread!
This thread is for people who know or believe that their sexual orientation is no more of their choosing than what color eyes they have. And who are looking for scientific data and an intelligent debate.
So if you are a gay basher or just plain disagree with the above premise, please start you own thread and hate away.

just incase you edit that gem.

Hey guys! Guyz! HaaaAAAAaaaaY! Guys!

Your opinions don't agree with our fabulous ones, can you guyz plz leave? ThaaaAAAaaanks!

(ps it doesn't work that way)

[edit on 6-22-2008 by forsakenwayfarer]

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:14 PM
reply to post by WhatTheory

Yes and decades of research and attempts at "correcting the problem" have had dismal results at best. If it were behavioral completely in nature, than a behavioral treatment over the course of time should be able to overturn the so called "disorder", but do we se this? No. Success rates for "correction" have been marginal at best, and over time relapse rates have been high further eroding the treatment efficacy rates. Clearly, this evidence suggests that it goes beyond behavioral in nature, and while behavior may play a role, the genetic / womb explanation appears to be more applicable, at least in terms of setting the stage (vulnerability). One must keep in mind that there are many variables at play here both at the behavioral, social, and biological level, and it's not a one size shoe fits all sort of thing, although many may cluster around a size 11 as it were.

By the way, the vast majority of therapists and people in academia agree with the Supreme Court ruling. I don't know if you’re in the field or not, or just arm chairing it, but among experts you clearly would be in the minority in terms of your view point here regardless of any politics in the equation.

The only reason it would be a "problem" for someone is the societal pressure placed on someone as a result of discrimination and abuse. The "problem" (interference with quality of life issues) is felt by the victim (the homosexual) and the cause of the problem is not the individuals, but rather is in rooted in society and its areas of bigotry. To then take it one step further and say that it's a disorder on the part of the victim suggests adding further salt to the wound by placing the subject in some behavioral correction therapy that in all probability will not work, is to me more indicative of psychosis.

Looking at things this way, one may arrive at the conclusion that to suggest homosexuality is a mental disorder, is to exhibit signs of anti social and sadistic tendencies.

As a side note, I've always thought a section in the DSM should include excessive religiosity (I don't know what it would be called; religio-schizoid anti-social personality disorder, perhaps?). It would appear that this affliction and it's recognized effects socially do in fact lead to disruptions in quality of life issues for folks (ie: victims of bigotry, stoning, wars etc...) but like the un-empathetic law breaker who climbs to the top of corporate or government ranks, not recognizing that they have a problem, while the ones who suffer are those stepped on as the ill person makes his or her climb to the top. Of course the church's vast empire and fornication with politics would never allow for clasification of such a disorder to happen. Although, the court managed to get it right back in the 70's despite a heavy fight by the religious right.

Strange things do happen

[edit on 23-6-2008 by skyshow]

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 12:55 AM
People do not choose to be gay
People choose to discriminate

I am gay, I am not choosing to be gay. No one can tell me that but me.

Homosexuality is not a disorder. It is not something that has to be treated. It is on par with race and eye color.

In my belief, it can have an overall positive effect of the population as a whole. You have a bigger population, containing straight and gay people, that develop and sustain advanced ways of life only possible with large populations, and because of the nature of homosexuality, the exploding population will not give birth to a generation just as big as the one before. It's a tool nature uses as birth control.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by forsakenwayfarer

The article you link to in your post refers to memories recovered under hypnotherapy. This is something of which I am just as suspicious as you are, since so-called 'recovered memories' have been used to support claims of alien abduction, Satanic ritual abuse and other nonsense.

The memories of which I speak were not recovered under any kind of therapy. I have always had them; there was never a time in my life when I was not aware of them. I do not consider them memories of trauma, nor do I have any guilt feelings associated with them.

There are more things in heaven and earth, etc. You may not remember your early childhood, but it is not at all unheard of for other people to do so.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by WickedStar
well, here is something from an article sympathetic to men having sex with men (MSM) but decided to stay pragmatic about the whole issue because it is set in Africa where this is a big deal. It seeks to educate people.

Consequently, unprotected anal sex in MSW ensued, as “people do not even know that anal sex can transmit HIV.

Anal sex is more damaging than vaginal sex,” Rinyiru explained. Njoroge explained, “Water-based lubricants are not readily available, as they are too expensive.

Vaseline or lotions are being used, which can lead to tearing of a condom and consequently a higher HIV prevalence.”

Rinyiru identified this problem in her study, where “MSWs had little knowledge about water-based lubricants.”

This ignorance about male to male sex accounted for the high prevalence of HIV in MSMs, where Njugore reported that a study found that 47% of MSMs were HIV positive. Runyiri added that “STI infections were common in MSMs,” she added. -report-admits-842478.html

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers and their clients.
So much for your lie that anal sex is healthy.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by ObamaMomma

(I preface by saying that I am by no stretch any kind of expert in any field. This post just reflects what I've observed in my 24 short years of life.)

I've often wondered about the logic behind the "homosexuality is a choice" school of thought. For one, I don't understand why someone would choose to become a member of a group of people who are often mocked and looked down upon by a large number of people within society.

And another thing--I know people who I went to school with my whole life who "turned out" being gay. The funny thing is that they were ALWAYS gay. Even as little kids. And I doubt that a little kid is making any conscience decisions regarding his sexuality. This is, in my opinion, an obvious retort to the idea that "homosexuality is a choice." Of course this is not evidence that homosexuality is never a choice. It certainly is a choice in some cases for some people, but definitely not in the majority. There is obviously something genetic at work here.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 01:56 AM
reply to post by skyshow

As a side note, I've always thought a section in the DSM should include excessive religiosity (I don't know what it would be called; religio-schizoid anti-social personality disorder, perhaps?). It would appear that this affliction and its recognized effects socially do in fact lead to disruptions in quality of life issues for folks (ie: victims of bigotry, stoning, wars etc...).

For the information of those who might not otherwise get this very important point, the DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:24 AM
reply to post by schrodingers dog

Alex, Thanks for sharing your story. Especially impressive considering the prejudice and lack of understanding expressed in some of the posts preceding yours. If I may ask, was the research included in my OP in any way helpful, that is to say did it add further to what you already knew?

Thanks! Everything one reads is helpful, and yes, the research was very interesting. I respect every person's opinion even if I don't agree with it. I just wish as I said that people were less judgmental and absolute; not to please me, but for their own selves. So as to be more open to new ideas and possibilities, new truths...


posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:34 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thank you!

I am studying music composition, aspiring to become a music composer... someday (I always had an inclination for the arts).

I agree that people are changing to more loving and tolerant beings. We need each other to survive on this planet, for our planet to continue to survive and we need each other because in spirit we are all brothers and sisters...


posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 03:41 AM

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Being homosexual is a mental disorder, period!
This was scientifically proven by the American Psychiatric Association until it removed homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973.

It was removed from the list NOT because of evidence to the contrary, but because of political pressure and protests. This is really sad because science is supposed to be above this sort of thing. Once political pressure starts interfering with scientific studies, then science renders itself useless.

Well, I'm a christian and a bible believing one, for the most part (a few problems with the english translation). I was also a pre-med student in college. While going through a volume on genetic abnormalities, I came across a disease in which the individual was born with both male and female sexual organs. They were given a choice, as medicine improved, as to which gender they would prefer and an operation could be performed and chemicals given to solidfy their choice. I pondered on this for a long time, as this was something that hadn't entered into my frame of reference. I went back to the scriptures and re-read the passages. It was here that I started to understand better, what homosexuality is (as regards the scriptures). Follow along and see what you think based on your understanding of the texts:

The Old Testament was a survival of the fittest guide (I don't mean in the sense of Darwin but in the sense of humanity against the nephilim). Anything that stunted the growth of the human population in their communities, was heavily frowned upon, including things which detracted from the birth rate of new humans, proper sanitary and dietary practices. This was in effect until the advent of the Messiah, at which point, the entire focal point shifted, from survival of one group (humans), to survival of all groups (gentiles are extended the invitation, which would naturally include nephilim amongst their ranks).

In the New Testament, the focal point was understanding your place as a christian and believer in the larger community of eternity. The teachings of Jesus are paramount here because the emphasis continually returns your focus on the things above and not the things of the flesh. This included celebacy, regardless of sexual orientation. Sin was re-interpreted by Jesus himself, to be so all encompassing that even thinking of commiting the sin was the equivalent of doing the sin, and had Moses actually laid out the law as it was originally intended, no flesh would be saved. He points this out regarding Moses' teaching on divorce.

Later, when it references sin, it includes almost everything. Homosexuality is included in that grouping because anything that focuses on the natural urges of the flesh (included impure thoughts) separates you from God, locally. The whole point is not that the person is gay, but that a christian should strive to get their eyes off this life, and onto their eternity (which is a heckuvalot longer than the one down here).

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 05:24 AM
I don't know about a study on it or how effective such a study would actually be, but, my very best friend is a gay male, and I have several other gay male friends whom I have met through him, I am female BTW, my friend is extremley effeminate, it just doesn't feel like I am hanging out with a guy, he seems more feminine than any female friend I have. He is overly emotional, has adopted 3 boys and is a great parental figure for them and watches over them like any 'mother hen' should and would. He worries about his appearance like a woman, he takes better care of his hair and nails and clothing than most women. I have known him for a long time, and according to him, he has just been the way he is all his life. Now some of his friends are not like this, some of them come across to me as fake, and They seem to be into simply being sexually deviant. I guess my point is that some guys are born with too much female chromasones, and some are just deviant and like to flirt with a risky sex life. But the ones like my friend you could not change for anything. He was born the wonderful way he is.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 06:39 AM
I have always had gay friends, all my life and have talked with them extensively about this issue. I've never met anyone that felt it was a choice they made. Now, having said that I will say this:

There is no gay gene, period. The article in the OP is on a website that does peer review and publishes articles, but they aren't in any respectable science journal, and there are a number of errors in the article, I don't think the author really knew what he was talking about.

I believe it isn't a choice, I think its perfectly natural and that there are other factors at work, such as in utero changes due to stress, etc. But there has never been, anywhere, anything that ever even remotely pointed to the existence of a gay gene.

Here's some food for thought: If it was genetic, how would it get inherited, if gays don't have children (for the most part); it would have been bred out. Also, the percentage of gays/lesbians in other cultures and races, remains very constant at about 1 out of 10 people being same-sex-oriented.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:08 AM
well i think that all the people has the rights for to express his sexuality in how it wants i don't see wiht bad eyes the homosesuality people
all are human beings .

[edit on 23-6-2008 by rubyesmeralda]

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:53 AM
reply to post by link777

All influenced by genetic predisposition. Not an either or. Nurture, Nature and choice. I know some girls that really get off with girls, but they have their 'real' relationship with men.
Animals- homo behavior turns up under stress, lack of prospective hetero mates and limited resources. Urbanity, and dense populations are the main root of homo behaviors. In the old days, alot of people just chose to be aesexual. We're really oversexed today. It seems if you don't hook up with SOMEONE, you're shunned. Be it homo or hetero. Gots to have a lover.

This is complicated. There are practical reasons for taboos on gayness. It leads to pervasive acceptance of other useless social norms. Pedophilia. Anal sex can be a health risk. Disease. Don't forget the poor souls who spread HIV willy-nilly before the disease was understood. They were just looking for a good time. And men are promiscuous because it's more acceptable for dudes to be "on the prowl" than it is for women.

Homosexuality is not normal. Sorry. Not any more than being obese is normal. Or addiction is normal. Or a myriad of other common deviant behaviors or traits. Should homosexuality be a crime or the object or hate /derision? Not any more than any of these other abnormalities. We can't all be gay. Well, we can, but it would suck. And I don't know about the effects of single-sex couples parenting. Needs study.
Also. I think homosexual men have a rough time, becasue even if they are "all naturally" queer, they still have some fairly basic genetic drives for masculine behaviors. Ever watched a male gay couple have a lovers' quarrel? SCARY!

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by djerwulfe

Prove to me that it's all genetic predisposition. I'm telling you, there is no proof, none at all, never has been, that its genetic. Please, learn some science and then come back and tell us what you think. Until then, your opinion is just that and nothing more, and an uninformed one at that.

And homosexuality DOES NOT lead to pedophilia. This is another one of your foundless statements, where there is no proof whatsoever.

I really hate it when people irresponsibly give out scientific factoids which have no basis in science. I think you are coming strictly from your prejudices and not science at all. Quit defaming gays just because YOU have a problem with it.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by endrun

You didn't read my post. So how am I to respond to your questions about things I didn't say?
All aspects of human behavior can be argued to have a genetic basis. Read the next sentence Mr./Mrs. Reactionary.

I didn't say homosexuality led to pedophelia. I said that a society that accepts homosexuality as a norm is predisposed to move onto to tolerance for other forms of sexual deviance. I didn't make this up. Ever heard of the Greeks?

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:03 AM
The most obvious flaw in the paper is the assumption that male homosexuals do not have sex with women and so have children, and thus reproduce their own genes. Any study that begins with that assumption is bound to provide an erroneous conclusion because that assumption is just flat wrong.

I would say that the percentage of gay men who never have sex with women or genetic children is quite small compared to the percentage of men who prefer sex with other men, but marry and have children to satisfy their families, society, etc.

It has been going on for thousands of years. It is well documented in Ancient Greek society, the Romans talked about how the Celts preferred it that way, headlines today regularly trumpet this or that political or religious male figure who has been busted seeking sex with other men. (And they are just the ones that people care enough about to report)

In order for any study to really turn up relevant data on this subject, they have to look at the facts of human sexual behavior, not just convenient myths.

posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by endrun

You sould read more and react less. What factoids did I give out without scientific basis? You didn't even read my post.

Here's one for ya Timtim:

* insert personal attck here* Use you imagination. Flavor it with a splash of lacking critical reading skills and then practice on this article.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in