In an effort to get something useful out of this thread, rather than simply refuting foolish comments and having the refutations largely ignored (I realize not totally, Rook; why don’t you come out and say exactly what you’re driving at, and why?), here’s an issue that has not been tackled, and seems worth discussing. I trust that nobody will read it as homophobic or trolling.
Back in the seventies, there was a revival of the old German concept of “not-homosexualet” – the “not” meaning not the English word “not” but the German prefix for “privation.” Effectively the concept ascribed a certain amount of homosexual behavior (not “behavior by homosexual people,” but “same-sex sex acts”) to situations where extended-time single-sex groupings occurred, such as on warships or private schools. Faced with exclusion from situations where heterosexual activity would be possible, the majority of people in such bounds, being, as noted, people who are not “pure homosexuals” or “pure heterosexuals” turned to homosexual contact as a means of relieving their sexual frustration other than masturbation, of having sexual contact with another. I have never seen this refuted but the idea has never been mentioned in anything I’ve read in the last twenty years or so.
Now I can understand clearly where a gay person could see this as “well, they turn to second-best when the best is not available” gay bashing. However, the people who are being analyzed by it are not those of homosexual orientation but the majority group who are predominantly heterosexually oriented but who can under some circumstances respond to homosexual stimulation. (And that too sounds slightly pejorative – read it as an attempt at expressing “mostly-straight-bi” people’s reactions.)
Any of you folks who have been into the subject in more depth than I have any comments? Have there been studies of this sort of thing conducted since? Has the idea been refuted? Combat my ignorance here!
Actually, I’m glad you brought this up. My understanding has been that Xq28 is not “the gay gene,” but has been widely misinterpreted by the media to be so.
zen101, do you have some cites for the actual research they did on this?
One would think that if this actually was “the gay gene” it would have made more of a splash. As it is, all the major medical and psychological associations are sticking with the “combination of nature and nurture” theories.
Xq28 is a gene-rich region with hundreds if not thousands of genes. While it may have genes which can cause an increased probability of homosexuality, there is no one gene there that is causing homosexuality. While there is an increased preponderance of homosexuality in first degree relatives, it is far, far off the Mendelian ratios we would expect.
Ok, I said I would move this to The Pit if I saw another insult. Since I’ve seen several, off it goes. You know the rules, guys. It’s not that hard to click over to the Pit if you feel you must fling direct insults.
Is a “gene” an intron-bordered strand of DNA that only codes for a single protein, or can a “gene” code for several proteins? (And if the latter, does each “stop” codon mean that that segment of DNA has to be transcribed onto a separate piece of RNA, or can a single RNA strand code for more than one protein too?)
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, two weeks, four days, 14 hours, 34 minutes and 51 seconds.
8064 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,008.03.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 0 minutes.
Jeez, and I was holding back - now we can really let fly!
Of course, do you think he’s actually smart enough to find this now that it’s moved, or will there be a new thread entitled “Why was my thread deleted - your all against me!” :rolleyes:
Apologies to Gaudere, but you knew it was coming. And I tried, I really did!
Good point, actually most of my research is six to seven years out of date. Also as matt points out there is probably no gene which makes you gaya series of genetic codes simply makes it a possible option or provides a propensity or allows for the potential. Of course his example about a series of genes to make for a person with the potential to be a really good sprinter makes me think about a series of genes which allow someone to be really good at being gay. Then I start to giggle thinking about if I were going to be a really good homosexual how would I go about it? After doing some more research on this I will comment further on the specifics of the region Xq28. I have to go to the library at OHSU because it is too difficult to filter hard data on this on the web. It seems most of the pertaining material is politically slanted one way or the other as opposed to just raw data.
Something which has been touched on a bit but not really delved into is the nature of bisexuality.
My own experience is that it is perfectly normal to have bisexual feelings at one time or another and to be capable of change back and forth through the course of your lifetime.
My studies into biology speak of three genders: Male, Female, Neuter. Hermaphrodites are either functioning male or female with the possibility of contradicting secondary sexual features but are most often functioning neuter and thus do not constitute a fourth gender.
My studies into human sexuality speak of seven genders: Hetero Male, Hetero Female, Homo Male, Homo Female, Ambi Male, Ambi Female, and finally Neuter. I have actually been more curious as to the nature of “ambi” sexual behavior and if there really is such a thing as a true “hetero” human. I have never met anyone who has stated that they have never had any homosexual contact or thoughts w/o them becoming defensive and thus throwing doubt onto their assertations.
So, what makes someone bi-sexual? If it is simply the act itself then wouldn’t that make anyone who is a virgin a “neuter” since they haven’t had any contact? Or, more precisely, if you are a virgin is is possible to view yourself as a heterosexual or homosexual? Who decides this? No one I have ever worked with seemed all that interested in it (note: I tend to discredit Kinsey’s later work in the field. After a time he became more of a motivator than an observer and thus much of his data was skewed IMHO.).
Also something I have not read about in this forum so I’ll risk wrath and mention it here. Pretty much everyone admits that there are homosexuals who live the “straight” life for whatver reason. If you agree that there is a gene which gives one a propensity for, well for lack of a better word, “gayness” then what of those who lack that gene and yet live the life of a homosexual? I’m curious about opinions and don’t really have a well formulated opinion but I would like to know specifically what the gay users think of this. I’m certain that because society is very anti-gay that there are very few people who are actually living the gay life as a lie but I am equally certain that they do exist. Should they embrace their own genes and actually become heterosexuals? If you think so let me know, if you think that they should be left alone then what of people who are gay and yet live life as heterosexuals? Should they be left to live that life or should they be brought into touch with their predisposition? Is your initial thought one of contradiction on this?
Another question and a kind of aside from the general topic but close enough not to warrant a new thread: If you feel that you are gay due to your own genes would it irritate you to know someone who was gay by choice? I recently watched a movie called “Black And White” and it dealt a lot with white rich kids who wanted to be black gang bangers. In general the black gangsters thought they were irritating. I can see it too. I was born into a minority. I don’t like people who “elect” to associate themselves with my minority. In fact a lot of jews make gun of goyim who convert. It is usually lighthearted, but there is some real resentment behind it. Like “Hey, we just got out of the Pogroms and the death camps and NOW you want to join up? Fuck off cracker!”.
I’m interested in getting back to some real exchange of thought and off trying to educate one individual or “correct” him.
Rook I appreciate that you have something you want to say. But can you hold it down to one post a day please. Maybe just observ for a while. I’m not blaming you specifically, but you are at the center of this whirlwind and it’s distracting the thread. Be the big man and turn the other cheak a bit. Just as a favor to me. k?
That is so true! For instance, at what age do straight people look around and ask themselves if they are abnormal? And when did you last read a newspaper article about someone committing suicide because they thought they might be straight and couldn’t handle the pressure? Is the dumbest question to ask a gay/bi person “When did you know?”
KellyM enlightened me about “pure” homosexuals and “pure” heterosexuals. I do agree that most people aren’t “purely” either. Now this leads to another question. Do the similarities in genes that you associate with “the gay gene” regulate how gay you are?
Also, adding to Zen101’s question, there must be those who claim they were born homosexual but actually choose that life style. Take in account his example of white rich kids imitating black gang bangers. Can a “pure” homosexual tell the difference?
Can you approximate the percentage of genetically gay individuals to gay individuals by choice? In your view, are genetic homosexuals more prevalent then those who convert themselves?
Do you believe some homosexuals chose to become gay because of bad experiences with the opposite gender? If so, do you feel they are just as gay as a genetic homosexual?
Do you believe some homosexuals are going through a “phase”? It’s logical to assume an instance of a homosexual man becoming attracted to a female and becoming monogamous with that female. Does that mean he wasn’t gay to begin with? Or does that mean he chose his life style to begin with then chose a different later?
And last but not least, do you view gays different then lesbians? The sexual acts are obviously different to a certain degree. Emotionally men and women are different. So should the two groups be considered one or, because of differences between male and female anatomy as well as mentality, should they be view as two separate groups, independent of each other.
I don’t know if it’s worth posting this here now that we’re in the Pit instead of GD, but what the heck.
I never had any biology beyond Intro Bio my first year in college, so I may make a mistake below. If so, I’m sure someone will correct me…or flame me, since we are in the Pit now!
It is foolish to believe that there is such a thing as a single “gay gene” that works as an on/off switch for homosexuality – after all, there are two genes that control eye color, and sexual orientation is much more complex than that. But for the sake of simplicity let’s pretend that there is a single gene that controls sexuality. Let’s say that an AA pairing causes heterosexuality, an Aa pairing bisexuality, and an aa pairing homosexuality.
For some genetic traits natural selection favors the median over either extreme. If this were the case with our sexual orientation gene, it would mean that bisexuality (Aa) would be selected for over pure homosexuality (aa) or pure heterosexuality (AA). The latter two could never be bred out of the species, but they would be outnumbered by bisexuals. Some theories about human sexuality claim that this is the case and that most people have the ability to “swing both ways”, although they may prefer (or even strongly prefer) one sex over the other.
One thing I hate about evolutionary psychology is that it usually involves making all sorts of assumptions about how our Stone Age ancestors live. We actually know very little about this stage in human history and can only guess at how people lived then. However, if we accept the traditionally accepted model of Stone Age life where the women stayed close to the cave and gathered herbs and nuts while the men went off to hunt mammoths then I think the advantages of bisexuality soon become clear. The bisexual cave people could hook up in heterosexual pairs often enough to maintain a healthy rate of reproduction while also forming homosexual bonds that would benefit both parent and offspring. While Grok is off hunting the mammoth his girlfriend Una could rely on her girlfriend Theena for companionship and help with the kids. This could work even better than if Una simply found another man, because then Una might get pregnant and end up not only with another mouth to feed but with a lot of explaining to do to Grok when he gets home.
Of course this is all speculation. Even if I’ve managed to avoid making any obvious mistakes in my understanding of biology and genetics it could still be completely bogus. I thought it was an interesting idea, though, and at least marginally less stupid than some of the things that have already been posted in this thread.
Once this went to the Pit, I think ole Rookie lost track of the darned thing. Or maybe he’s scared. Anyway, in the hopes he comes back, I did find a book that Rook would find interesting - the title says it all - “Is It A Choice?”
I’m heterosexual and so are all my friends but I’ve worked closely with many gay people. I could never bring myself to ask them if the reason they are gay is because “they were born that way”? I’m personally tired of watching talk shows with homosexuals who say, “I wasn’t given a choice when I was born. This is just the way I am.”
So my question is, have there been any anatomical similarities within the gay community that straight people don’t have or is there no such thing as the “gay gene”?**
I read thru this whole thread and then back to Rook’s OP.
Rook, you’ve brought up a very complex issue; human sexual expression and tried to pin it on a simple cause and effect, ie: genetics.
Human sexuality isn’t a simple issue of being gay or straight. Kinsey’s famous scale of human sexual experience shows this. Kinsey’s scale rates human sexual exression between purely hetero experiences (0) and purely homo experiences (6). Trying to pin sexual expression on a simply genetic cause denies the reality of the sexual expression as shown in Kinsey’s scale.
The best that psychologists have been able to figure, to date, is that sexual expression is the result of several factors of which genetics MIGHT be one. Other factors are things like enviroment and hormones, especially in the womb.
Your original post states I’m personally tired of watching talk shows with homosexuals who say, “I wasn’t given a choice when I was born. This is just the way I am.”
Why are you tired of this? Why can’t you accept the fact for what it is? You feel homosexuality is unnatural, yet you wouldn’t define the term or why you use it other than “we weren’t designed that way.” Who the hell are you to say which way humans were “designed.” When did you steal a look at (the)God(s) blueprints of life and humanity? You’d better pull out some credentials to back up your statements or you’re just blowing smoke proving yourself to be an ass.
Nope, I guess you did find it, Rook. You’re asking a whole lot of new questions, though. I think each of them might be worthy of its own thread. Why don’t we try to finish off the question you started with? The book I suggested is a start - they probably have it at your local library.
But the temptation is too great - No, I don’t know of any heterosexuals who pretend to be homosexual aside from prostitutes and porn stars. There simply isn’t any advantage in doing so that I can think of…can you?
Can someone just answer the questions I asked previously? The questions are based on opinions and I’m interested in knowing the opinions of the homosexuals I’ve been conversing with. I want to hear the different ideas…
My sister used to pretend to be a lesbian. It had something to do with keeping boys from trying to date her, although I’m not entirely sure I understood her reasons. She’s a little odd.
Of course, she could very well be bisexual. I do know that she’s been dating the same guy for over a year now.
Let me put this a different way- Since male sexual acts generally result in ejaculation of sperm, which in turn plays a large part in reproduction, would you agree that sexual acts, in general has an origin for reproduction?
