(Pardon me if I sound rather incoherent. A sleeping pill I took last night has left me rather groggy this morning.)
Oi. The whole natural selection thing has been brought up far too many damn times, and been argued against so much that the novelty is beginning to wear thin.
As someone else pointed out, natural selection is not some guiding hand pushing towards a definitive goal. It is an inexact process occuring over hundreds of thousands of years which may or may not weed a trait out. A trait is generally only completely removed when it is a major detriment to survival and reproduction. Otherwise, it hangs around in some parts of a population.
Just because a homosexual may or may not reproduce does not mean the gene ends there. Lets say, just for speculation, that the gene for male homosexuality simply causes an attraction to men regardless of the bearer’s gender. This isn’t exactly going to bother a sister carrying said gene, and she’ll reproduce just fine. Also, what if it runs recessive? You could have multiple heterosexual carriers in whom it fails to manifest, until one carrier mates with another and activates the gene.
There’s a theory out that homosexuality could, in fact, have been a benefit to the troop of primitive humans. An extra hunter, for example, which does not compete to reproduce can more effectively feed the offspring of their siblings. This makes their genetic family more likely to succeed than those in which homosexuality is not evident. Thus, while their exact genes may not be passed on, those very similar to their own have a better chance of flourishing.
Oh, I didn’t think Mockingbird believed it–I think he brought it up because the topic brought it to mind. I didn’t mean to imply that he did, and I apologize if it came across that way.
Priam, too there is the consideration to be made, especially amongst some arguing that the Earth is becoming overpopulated by humans, that homosexuality (or more appropriately the desire not to reproduce, as there are certainly gay people who want kids) is a safeguard against the sort of rapid population increase we see in flies, for example.
Yes,is the reason for straight men being uncomfortable according to my primitive ape group hard wired theory. Straight men look at any man that would even concider to try to have sex with another man as someone that wants to show his domminance over another man. The straight man however has no intention of having sex with another man, therefore he is not tring to domminate over that other male thus the other male feels he is not threatened. Most men have a lot of primitive feelings that they can’t explain. I am ruled by primitive feelings that I know are hard wired and not learned.
Now, that site clearly has an axe to grind (every site I ran across did), but if the quotes are accurate, well, I don’t think Mockingbird misrepresented their views.
In other words, sex is a dominance thing, having sex with a woman is dominating her. This is the way it’s meant to be, but it’s wrong if it happens to you. You wouldn’t like it, but women, for some unkown reason, like to be dominated and humiliated? Why do you think this would be an acceptable state of affairs for women?
You’ve got a few things to learn, dear. I hope, for the sake of the women you may become involved with in the future, that you learn them soon.
You have, by the way, absolutely no way of knowing whether your feelings are hardwired or learned. Just because they feel very strong and you don’t know where they come from doesn’t mean they’re hardwired.
Oh yeah just wait someday I will win the Nobel prize for my primitive ape group theory being hard wired. Of coarse I will have to die first. But someday they will admire me from a distance. Because I will say, “Hey buddy don’t get too close it makes me nervious.”.
Both MacKinnon and Dworkin have suggested that it may be difficult to distinguish between normal sex and rape, as in the quotes you found. But they seem to blame this on social/cultural problems and unhealthy gender roles rather than the sexes of the individuals or the physical acts involved.
Now, I can’t fault anyone for being confused as to what MacKinnon and Dworkin really mean. I couldn’t tell you for sure myself, and I’ve made an honest effort with some of their original works. But I do know that both women have explicitly denied claiming that all sex is rape, that all heterosexual sex is rape, or that all penetration is rape, and I think if they sincerely believed any such thing they’d say so. Goodness knows they’ve been more than willing to profess other strange beliefs.
This is getting rather far afield of the OP though, and since I don’t really enjoy defending two women I think so little of I’ll leave it at that.
I am just a little curious. do most people here feel that if someone is uncomfortable around a group of people (in this case homosexual men) that something is wrong with them? A person admitted that they were uncomfortable around that group and the response was they were on their way to being cured. Well I am uncomfortable around idiots and assholes. Does that mean I need to be cured? People have a right to feel as they do, it’s how they act that matters. As long as I don’t harass or beat up or do anything nasty to the idiots and assholes I should be allowed to be uncomfortable around them.
I hope I was clear in what I said above, I know what I meant but have been drinking too much.
Well, Tannim, I’d say it’s a question of motivations. Why is one uncomfortable around a certain group of people?
It’s perfectly sensible to be uncomfortable around assholes or idiots. They’re usually annoying or even dangerous.
Being uncomfortable around gay men, IMO, is a different thing. If they make you uncomfortable because you think it’s “icky” or immoral, or you’re afraid of being hit on, then that’s a stupid reason (again, IMO). You should get over it.
Now note I said “should”, not “have to”. Of course you are “allowed” (as you say) to be uncomfortable, just don’t expect me to think it’s rational.
Ferrous , I was not disagreeing with you I just was hoping to make the point that in my opinion the external actions of someone are more important than the feelings they have inside.
The person that is uncomfortable around a group of people but deals with it is doing good things. They may not change their own opinon or feelings but by their actions (which may go against their internal feelings) they can positivly affect others.
Mostly I feel that saying someone needs to be cured of their feelings is wrong. Educated and informed is ok, but using cured is a bad way to put it IMHO. I hope that some of these threads do educate some people.
I’d say it depends. Are you uncomfortable because they’re gay? Or are you uncomfortable because (WARNING: STEREOTYPING AHEAD) they’re singing showtunes and you don’t know any, so you feel left out?
Perhaps it’s just that someone hasn’t been around anyone who is openly gay before, and just feels uncomfortable, as in, awkward and afraid of making a faux pas, saying the wrong thing, etc.
