Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80
Like Tree3Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By Write4U
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: 'Global' Bisexuality Possible?

  1. #1 'Global' Bisexuality Possible? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    36
    Hey, I was wondering about everybody's opinions and facts about bisexuality [keeping in mind sexuality is a scale, not strictly straight, gay, etc.].
    Does anyone believe that bisexuality can become the 'norm'? For example, in the ancient times [Greece], homosexuality was not even defined as such. And as our own society grows more open-minded [USA], and homophobic people [i.e. some religious people, etc.] grow less in number, as well as the elimination of labels and gender-norms, do you think people, simple socially, can become a 'bisexual society'? What are your thoughts on 'exotic becomes erotic' [in relation to the elimination of gender norms/labels [stereotypes]], genetic factors, etc.?
    Obviously men and women still need each other to reproduce, but what do you think of social factors influencing sexual orientation? Will humans in the future be more openly sexual with both sexes, etc. ...?
    Just some questions about the hypothetical future :P
    Edit: I forgot to mention the growing number of lesbians and female bisexuals. A published study found this, and suggested it is due to the relationship differences between men and women. Women are much more intimate with their female friends, to the point where there is not a whole lot of difference between a relationship with their girl friends and romantic relationships... If society changed to be a more caring, intimate one....


    Last edited by MrPiano; October 17th, 2012 at 11:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    The range of the possible with regards to possible societies is wide, I say something like that is possible. It might not change peoples preferences as much as the way these are viewed. I dont consider myself a "straight" steak eater because I dont like Liver that much, nor call someone a bi-steak-sual someone that eats both filet mignon and liver, and theres no rainbow flag to represent the Liver-eater community with Liver-eater Olympics. Mind you the absence of social frames doesnt make me love liver more its jut that the choice is more free of associations/connotations.

    As for family, Im a bit old fashioned(from a certain non traditional point of view), ***all other things being equal*** I think its better to have a mother and a father, though I can imagine that in an alternate society (where STD are no longer an issue) the parents could have occasional sexual partners without it being a secretive affair, the way you might play tennis with someone else without sneaking out to play tennis. ~OK Honey, Im off to have wild sex with Betty -Ok, but be sure to stop for milk when you get back~ . In an alternate society .


    Last edited by icewendigo; October 17th, 2012 at 12:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Will humans in the future be more openly sexual with both sexes
    I think we are, and always have been, more open sexually as a species than most societies care to admit. Those expressions have often been oppressed violently and thus hidden. There's also a circumstance component. A man, for example, who'd predominantly and strongly attracted to women with little to no interest in men, might still have sex with another man for sexual relief if he's months at sea, or in a prison.

    Regardless of what the president of Iranian President says, the base sex drive ratios are likely similar among all humans through history. Future societies might be more accepting and thus sexuality of all forms might be more in the open in the future.
    JoshuaL likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    I've got a question.

    Is our attitude (openness) towards sexuality; more culturally based, biologically based, or a combination of the two?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Biologically we're capable of just about anything. Biologically, genetically, we're born with tendencies and preferences which vary quite a lot.

    Culturally? Because of our biological capability, the great majority of us can fit quite comfortably into whatever our cultural environment allows. However, the more tightly a culture draws boundaries around sexual behaviour, the more people are likely to find themselves in a position where they are uncomfortable to a greater or lesser extent even though they manage to get by according to appearances.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Biologically we're capable of just about anything. Biologically, genetically, we're born with tendencies and preferences which vary quite a lot.

    Culturally? Because of our biological capability, the great majority of us can fit quite comfortably into whatever our cultural environment allows. However, the more tightly a culture draws boundaries around sexual behaviour, the more people are likely to find themselves in a position where they are uncomfortable to a greater or lesser extent even though they manage to get by according to appearances.
    So in a sense, our attitudes towards sexuality are either shaped like an opening of a funnel (biologically) and narrowing down to the end (culturally) if it frowns on the openness, or shaped like an hourglass if it's more open/comfortable to and with sexuality depending on the culture?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by MrPiano View Post
    Hey, I was wondering about everybody's opinions and facts about bisexuality [keeping in mind sexuality is a scale, not strictly straight, gay, etc.].
    Does anyone believe that bisexuality can become the 'norm'? For example, in the ancient times [Greece], homosexuality was not even defined as such. And as our own society grows more open-minded [USA], and homophobic people [i.e. some religious people, etc.] grow less in number, as well as the elimination of labels and gender-norms, do you think people, simple socially, can become a 'bisexual society'? What are your thoughts on 'exotic becomes erotic' [in relation to the elimination of gender norms/labels [stereotypes]], genetic factors, etc.?
    Obviously men and women still need each other to reproduce, but what do you think of social factors influencing sexual orientation? Will humans in the future be more openly sexual with both sexes, etc. ...?
    Just some questions about the hypothetical future :P
    Edit: I forgot to mention the growing number of lesbians and female bisexuals. A published study found this, and suggested it is due to the relationship differences between men and women. Women are much more intimate with their female friends, to the point where there is not a whole lot of difference between a relationship with their girl friends and romantic relationships... If society changed to be a more caring, intimate one....

    I was watching this nature tv show about a group of gorilla's or chimps, I think they were gorillas. They were living in the wild, in a natural group formation.
    Something happened within the group, and all the females left the group. And only a large group of males remained together as a group.
    Shortly after the females left, most to all of the males, began doing sexual acts with each other.

    I was shocked, because their actions went against all information, I had heard regarding homosexual and bisexual percentages in humans.

    And also after some time, a group of females joined the male gorilla group. And the males stopped doing sexual acts with each other.


    I would like to add that scientists say, "most men who hate, talk bad about, or attack homosexual men, are gay or bisexual themselves."
    Or people that hate gay people are in religious cults.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    I've got a question.

    Is our attitude (openness) towards sexuality; more culturally based, biologically based, or a combination of the two?

    I would say biologically based, I believe gay/bisexual primates will have an important role in primate groups.

    It interesting how some 100% gay men, are so in touch with women, in regards to women's clothes, and styling their hair ex.ex. I would assume that within a pack of chimps, there are 100% gay chimps, that also have some special relationship with females. Just like the gay men I just spoke about.

    When I was younger, I worked for a catering company, and almost 100% of the men working there, were 100% gay. I was the only straight male worker there I knew of.

    I just want to say, those men had manners, common sense, kindness, and respect. Those men knew how to conduct themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I'm not sure. Scientifically speaking the liklihood of homosexuality has correlated with the number of male sons a woman has, the more she has the more likely the more that son is to be homosexual. These studies only deal with male homosexuality however so it's tough to use that to answer this questions query about bisexuality.

    Personally, I am somewhat open mindned about homosexuality myself, and am very strongly sexually attracted to women as well. I believe in the future given the cirucmstances men and women will more openly sexually attracted to each other as the predictions suit that men and women's social and gender roles will reach equivalence, in other words with both male and female qualities in both genders of an equal degree it is probably more likely that we will as a species engage in more homosexual acitivites, but that will not change a persons preference of who they want to be their life partner. Although as I said personally I am open to sex with a man in certain circumstances (to which I am not even aware of yet, as I have not had sex with a man) I want a female parter to live with for the rest of my life, not male.


    What I am curious about is that what is the ratio of which bisexuals choose either a male or female partner to live with for the rest of their lives... that would be an interesting study!
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    ***all other things being equal*** I think its better to have a mother and a father,
    Why? Are you meaning two parents, or specifically a M/F pairing?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    In bonobo society, everyone is bisexual. The major hurdle that stands in the way of human society becoming more bonobo-like is the very different ways in which the two species have evolved to deal with social stress. Humans tend to fight, bonobos tend to f__k. For humans, jealousy is a big problem. Humans would have to loosen strictures on fidelity considerably, since issues of infidelity often lead humans into conflict. And the raising of offspring would need to be more communal. I don't think we have it in us.


    ---Futilitist
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "Why? Are you meaning two parents, or specifically a M/F pairing?"
    I think its better to have a sibling than be an only child, and if you have siblings having both genders in the mix provides you(all things being equal) with a wider sample of perspectives/experiences, same token having 2 parents is a plus over just one, and different M/F is a plus (in my personal opinion) over twice of the same thing. To put it in exaggerated simplistic terms, Imo its better to have a screw driver and a hammer in your tool box, than either two screw drivers and no hammer, or 2 hammers and no screw drivers, or, its better to learn two languages than one, better to have filet mignon and a salad, than two filet mignon(steak) without salad or two salads without filet mignon. I know, I know, Im old fashioned
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    old fashioned, and not supported by reputable family studies.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I think icewendigo has a valid opinion and it seems based on his personal experiences. While I may have been perfectly content having two fathers, as a female needing to talk to them about that time of the month can be pretty damned awkward. Discussing it with my mother was embarrassing enough. And since I am attracted to men it would benefit me more to have a straight man talk to me about how boys may respond to me as a female in our society or what a certain type of behavior in a straight boy may mean. I don't expect a straight guy to understand why a gay man may enjoy particular activities that are associated with gay male relationships any more than I would expect a gay man to understand why a straight man loves the scent of a woman. And the same goes for if I had two moms. Not having a good straight male example around as a girl most probably contributed to my piss poor judgement in how to know a good man from a bad one in my earlier years. I ended up beaten and abused in many ways before I learned from my step father, who came into the picture pretty late in my childhood, what the signs of a good guy are.

    I do also agree that it is better to have both genders involved in the raising of a child. But these two genders do not necessarily have to be the parents. They can be grandparents who take an active role in helping to raise the grandchildren, aunts, uncles, or good family friends. It kinda falls back on that old phrase, it takes a village to raise a child. I think the more positive personalities from a mixture of lifestyles that can contribute to the development of the individual the better. We all learn from our differences and we need many different perspectives influencing us to achieve our highest potential.

    In answer to the OP, while I think any type of society is technically possible, I find it improbable that the majority of our society will ever be primarily bisexual. We may become totally accepting of the orientation but that does not mean we adopt it as our own orientation. I am pretty certain that most homosexuals have no problem with the idea of people being heterosexual, but being accepting of us obviously didn't automatically make them straight. They are what they are in spite of social norms and taboos. The homosexuals of today are proof that nurture is not what causes sexual orientation. Our society has never nurtured homosexuality but homosexuality remains a reality simply because it is in teh nature of some people to be homosexual and they can't do anything about it anymore than heterosexuals can force themselves to be gay.

    If you want to see what will likely happen in a society where taboos regarding sexuality are no longer an issue, simply look at the societies of great apes or chimpanzees. They are more like humans than any other animal and they are primarily heterosexual. Homosexuality and bisexuality are common among them but still a minority. Not because they have laws against it or religions to denounce it, but simply because it is not a dominant biological trait among the species. And the same is true for humans. I don't know if there is a "gay gene" or whatever, but if there is, the nature of what it is prevents it from being passed down as frequently as its presumed opposite would be. Then again it could just be luck of the draw as to which programming you have when you are born.

    My nephew is gay and my daughter is bisexual. I love them both dearly and do not believe either of them chose their orientation. They are simply acknowledging a fact about themselves that they cannot change. Some people hurl at the idea of eating spinach others drool. Our brains are simply not all wired the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    14
    As the world liberate and these types of improvements will happen in every country.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    19
    It is possible to be attracted to both sexes, but it's not always 50/50. Eventually, bisexuals may settle down with the sex they prefer more and appear to just be gay; however, the desire for the other sex is still there.

    Some studies say that potential cases of prenatal stress or excessive amounts of testosterone or hormones goes to the fetus during early development. Brain scans of homosexual males are generally similar to the scan of straight females and vice versa. There's not a 'gay gene' per se, but homosexuality has shown to be passive genetically. It may be a collection of certain genes that lead to this result.

    Environment may shape a sort of 'gay culture' but it doesn't have much to do about homosexuality itself. Still, love and sex is a mysterious thing and reproduction is not really enough to explain the phenomenon. Humans being can express love more sophisticatedly which makes it even more puzzling. Experimenting is not quite the same as actually being bi or gay though. The future will probably be more dependent on genetic outcome.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    If you want to see what will likely happen in a society where taboos regarding sexuality are no longer an issue, simply look at the societies of great apes or chimpanzees. They are more like humans than any other animal and they are primarily heterosexual. Homosexuality and bisexuality are common among them but still a minority. Not because they have laws against it or religions to denounce it, but simply because it is not a dominant biological trait among the species. And the same is true for humans. .
    There is one huge exception. The Bonobo (Pan paniscus), which are about the closest to humans genetically (there's even some serious discussion to reclassify them as "Homo paniscus,") are nearly all bisexual. Unfortunately people's squeamishness about sexuality keep these remarkable animals out of many American zoos.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cut-N-Shoot, Texas
    Posts
    5
    Quite an interesting thread, but one with as much logical leaps with self-serving suggestions.
    It's quite a stretch for anyone to profer knowledge about presumptions on the subject of the thread
    based on non-human studies. I believe the odds do not favor a bisexual world.
    Believers in providence should just do nothing!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantime View Post
    ...the number of male sons a woman has, the more she has the more likely the more that son is to be homosexual.
    That's predictable for a social species practicing division of labour, where some childless members could care for parents or fill other roles besides parenting. More accurately, what's predictable is some genetic means of ensuring not all offspring become breeders. The keen bit of my point is: it's not exactly homosexuality that's predictable, it's non-heterosexuality. E.g. worker bees aren't homosexual.

    My thesis that non-heterosexuality (including homosexuality) in humans is predictable and adaptive, doesn't get much traction even with gay scientists, go figure.

    Sparky, the reason no "gay gene" can be found is because despite our wish it were so pat, no one is born gay. We're all born with the inevitability of developing sexual interests, that will latch onto sex objects and compound around those objects (to the exclusion of others). We don't latch onto bicycles like Lorenz's goslings because we have more sense than that at puberty when it really takes off. Now, many but not all of us have some very weak instincts nudging our attractions toward the opposite sex. That, plus society is enough to ensure most people rapidly consolidate a lifelong imprint that will make them breeders. People without heterosexual instincts aren't pre-wired gay but they usually (and sensibly) develop attraction for one sex or the other, not bicycles.

    Anyway, to the OP, I don't see the benefit to our species in everybody being bisexual (everybody being the same). Specialization is proven effective in all other social species, and we're capable of specializing to amazing heights. What I would like to see, is non-breeding family members roped back into the family, not allowed to go pursue their individuality in San Fransisco or whatever. I want children to grow up believing the ideal family unit includes not just breeder mom and breeder dad but a queer auntie who takes them out on weekends and a bachelor uncle who looks after grandma. I want these children, when some of them realize they aren't like most boys and girls, to know they have valued roles to play.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    It has been documented in several studies now that the more sons a mother has the more the womb will try to make successive sons female by changing the chemical bath.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Sparky, the reason no "gay gene" can be found is because despite our wish it were so pat, no one is born gay.
    Or simply it's due to prenatal conditions or a combination of genes. We still have no idea what most genes, how they interact with other genes, or what controls their expression.

    We don't latch onto bicycles like Lorenz's goslings because we have more sense than that at puberty when it really takes off.

    Many of behavioral and physical characteristics correlated with adult homosexuality are already expressed in early childhood--suggesting the nudging towards being attracted to one sex or the other is probably somewhat strong.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I'm sure that imprinting during puberty is magnitudes stronger than childhood or prenatal inclination. That's why we don't say a toddler is "straight" or "gay" or "into leather". We wait for people to consolidate their interests, normally as puberty finishes up, before we reckon their orientations set.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I'm sure that imprinting during puberty is magnitudes stronger than childhood or prenatal inclination. That's why we don't say a toddler is "straight" or "gay" or "into leather". We wait for people to consolidate their interests, normally as puberty finishes up, before we reckon their orientations set.
    you are sure of this HOW? "Into leather" is totally irrelevant as its a fetish taste and not a orientation at all. Gay or straight is quite noticeable by the time a child has left toddler-hood and usually by kindergarten in many cases.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I'm sure that imprinting during puberty is magnitudes stronger than childhood or prenatal inclination.
    you are sure of this HOW?
    Toddlers don't betray sexual inclinations with remotely the intensity or frequency as teens. How often do you see a toddler bird-dogging another kid's ass? Moreover, teens take pains to conceal it; young children would not be able to.

    Gay or straight is quite noticeable by the time a child has left toddler-hood and usually by kindergarten in many cases.
    Then why do young-adult homosexuals need to break it to their families? Why don't family doctors talk about "your gay daughter"?


    I didn't know the theory that people develop sexual inclinations mainly during puberty, had been debunked.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Then why do young-adult homosexuals need to break it to their families? Why don't family doctors talk about "your gay daughter"?
    For the same reasons parents are often are shocked to find out their "little darling angel" is pregnant. Denial.

    And doctors probably should discuss homosexuality as a mental health issue, not for the fact a child might exhibit secondary behavioral characteristic that suggest they might become gay, but so the parents come to accept that possibility and continue to love the child rather than making the kid's life a living hell of rejection or trying to change that disposition. The same is true of setting realistic expectations for a child's sexual interest and activity regardless of gender preference as they arrive in preadolescence.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I'm sure that imprinting during puberty is magnitudes stronger than childhood or prenatal inclination.
    you are sure of this HOW?
    Toddlers don't betray sexual inclinations with remotely the intensity or frequency as teens. How often do you see a toddler bird-dogging another kid's ass? Moreover, teens take pains to conceal it; young children would not be able to.

    Gay or straight is quite noticeable by the time a child has left toddler-hood and usually by kindergarten in many cases.
    Then why do young-adult homosexuals need to break it to their families? Why don't family doctors talk about "your gay daughter"?


    I didn't know the theory that people develop sexual inclinations mainly during puberty, had been debunked.
    Actually many (most) children do show interest in the sex they are attracted to, resulting in play ground crushes and them saying they want ot marry x person when they grow up.

    as to the second part that is very very very simple, social stigma. period. over a century of Virulent anti-gay culture created this thing called "the closet". Only in the last 5-10 years has it really started to be broken down. Read the Blog posts of "Amelia" Amelia starting with her first blog post here Amelia: The Way My Boy Sees the World
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I understand and agree with the above points, but think puberty is being underrated. To my view, promoting the theory that people are born straight or gay is a simplification. It sounds to me like saying people are born muscular or born geniuses.

    One implication of my theory is that people have some control over how their sexual interests develop (or don't!). To put it bluntly, people have some choice about what to ogle and jerk off about when they're thirteen years old. I know I did. Whatever/whoever I focused sexual attention on, I became more attracted to.

    I understand why people would dislike the idea we have/had some control and responsibility over sexual development.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by jaydonc View Post
    As the world liberate and these types of improvements will happen in every country.
    I agree, as the world becomes more complex with the vast exchange of information, the cultural structure will have to be modified to accommodate these "variations on a theme".

    Exclusionary practises have not proven to be effective or humane.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    One implication of my theory is that people have some control over how their sexual interests develop (or don't!). To put it bluntly, people have some choice about what to ogle and jerk off about when they're thirteen years old. I know I did. Whatever/whoever I focused sexual attention on, I became more attracted to..
    I dare say if you were one of those who perhaps have a playboy and a playgirl in front of them and had trouble deciding which to masturbate to, you're experience is exceedingly rare. For me, nor any of close male friends that I know of, there was no such choice--it was playboy. Among my close friends our conversations and games were completely consumed by interest in girls. Most of the 2-5% of male homosexuals recall a similar experience--that of preferring playgirl and having no obvious choice in the matter.

    We can start comparing research but most of it shows that there are pretty strong links with things like order of siblings, prenatal conditions, some physical differences in between brain structures, and behavioral tendencies well before adolescence. It really does appear most people are born with strong dispositions to be attracted to one gender or the other. The primate research, where there is a bit more freedom to conduct research, shows similar conclusions.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    I understand and agree with the above points, but think puberty is being underrated. To my view, promoting the theory that people are born straight or gay is a simplification. It sounds to me like saying people are born muscular or born geniuses.

    One implication of my theory is that people have some control over how their sexual interests develop (or don't!). To put it bluntly, people have some choice about what to ogle and jerk off about when they're thirteen years old. I know I did. Whatever/whoever I focused sexual attention on, I became more attracted to.

    I understand why people would dislike the idea we have/had some control and responsibility over sexual development.
    So in other words, your bi. You fall into the middle range of the Kinsey scale. As Lynx already noted, the vast majority of people don't. I had playboys as a kid, and was always sad at the lack of guys to oogle. I wasn't interested in the women in them, only the men.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    you're experience is exceedingly rare
    I'd like to think my insight was exceedingly rare, but okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    your bi. You fall into the middle range of the Kinsey scale.
    Vaguely, in the beginning. But classifying prior to puberty is like saying the vacuum of space is "cold" - there just isn't enough material to have much of any temperature. Later, when undirected hornyness compelled me to find sex objects, I discovered I could pick and choose. And I'd like my choices more and more. Being a scientifically minded kid I actually tested this by randomly selecting names in my class: people I would learn to like. For a year or two I was bisexual.

    There were a few openly gay boys in my school (this the Boy George generation) but homosexuality then was lonely, complicated, and dangerous. Moreover, the girls picked me up early to practice their guy-bagging skills on, which was fun. Often finding some girl in my bedroom, I learned to like girls, more and more.

    So for myself anyway, developing sexual preference was like when you literally make love by gazing long into a person's eyes. This can be a meditated act, making love not just in the other but in yourself. I suspect that just as many people go through life believing love determined by fate, people go through puberty believing they have no control over how it develops.

    That's all anecdotal, subjective, probably deluded.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Congratulations,,,,,,your Bi......and chose to go with the easier option for possible partners. It doesnt change the fact that your bisexual. I am NOT bisexual, I have known since I was in early elementary that i was attracted to other guys, long before sexual possibilities were even contemplated by me.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Of course then there is the totally auto erotic individual who will use anything to gratify himself and to whom gender has no meaning per se. It is sexual gratification.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    It doesnt change the fact that your bisexual.
    I'd thought "queer" perhaps (meaning "not conventionally heterosexual") but I'll accept that label. Yet neither does the label change the fact I've never had sex with a man or thought about it much after the first few girlfriends.

    What you and Lynx_Fox said about early childhood certainty, is sinking in. I'd thought children can't feel decisive orientation because, firstly, that wasn't my experience; and secondly I reasoned children lack a sex drive to give substance to that orientation.

    What does childhood sexual orientation feel like? How does it work?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    What is it with people and gay sex????? Sex is not what makes someone gay or straight, its the attraction to the sex that makes one gay or straight. You really need to get over the orientation=fucking hang-up.


    Spend time in a school yard and you will see kids playing house, pretending to have husbands/wives/boyfriends/girlfriends. There is NO sex involved, but the attraction and desire to find a special friend "like mommy and daddy" have is clearly already there.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    I'll rephrase: What does decisive gender attraction feel like during childhood? How does it work? Are you saying it's inspired from parents?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    No, Im saying with straight and gay people (not bi or trans) its innate, and manifests as wanting to have someone as a boyfriend/Husband girlfriend/wife long before any contemplation of sexual motives.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Interesting. This urge to have a "special friend" sounds monogamous. In my experience monogamy's sufficiently reinforced by various factors, but I've never felt an innate need for it just for its own sake. I've never felt a need to elevate one friend or lover as "best".

    Would you agree the urge to secure a "mate", in children, is related to monogamy?

    And you say it's an innate need to have a "mate", not a circumstantial bonding? I'm kinda like asking does a baby instinctively crave a parent, or does it circumstantially bond to a parent and then proceed from there.


    This thread helped me better understand my 11-year-old son's one baffling behaviour of the last three or four years. He's supposedly had a love interest, a girl rarely seen, whom he mentions only in awful confidence: "SHE lives there", he'd whisper, with a shirking glance toward our neighbour's house, or, "If I go to Kayla's party, and all her friends are there, I might have to sit next to... HER." He acts so blatently hetero about this girl, I didn't take him seriously. I wondered: Where'd he learn this? Is my wife prompting our son, as when she pressed him to be a little soccer player? Why is he showing me this fake display? Now, I'm thinking he's in earnest. He's attracted to a dim object built up larger than life in his imagination. I'm also thinking he's not like me. And, granted the above posts, this 11-year-old boy is already a straight male.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others.. Speaking of the psychological aspect, one might become bisexual if his growing childhood is most with the same sex human interaction with minor existence of the opposite sex influence, such as some boys tend to become more attracted to males because of their major effect on his childhood with a small effects from the female part. Some might say it comes from a bad childhood in which the opposite sex becomes less influential such when a child lives with his father with small effect of the mother. While in hormonal it's uncontrollable since that one person is born with it.

    Though, personally, I would give a higher chance to having a global homosexuality rather than bisexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others.. Speaking of the psychological aspect, one might become bisexual if his growing childhood is most with the same sex human interaction with minor existence of the opposite sex influence, such as some boys tend to become more attracted to males because of their major effect on his childhood with a small effects from the female part. Some might say it comes from a bad childhood in which the opposite sex becomes less influential such when a child lives with his father with small effect of the mother. While in hormonal it's uncontrollable since that one person is born with it.

    Though, personally, I would give a higher chance to having a global homosexuality rather than bisexuality.
    All of the 1st paragraph is not supported by any modern medical or psychological research
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Still it nails me anecdotally: gestated on a schizophrenic hitchhiker's diet, born premature, and parents were neither a couple nor models of monogamy.

    I should like to support research aiming to show there is nothing wrong with bisexuals.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others.. Speaking of the psychological aspect, one might become bisexual if his growing childhood is most with the same sex human interaction with minor existence of the opposite sex influence, such as some boys tend to become more attracted to males because of their major effect on his childhood with a small effects from the female part. Some might say it comes from a bad childhood in which the opposite sex becomes less influential such when a child lives with his father with small effect of the mother. While in hormonal it's uncontrollable since that one person is born with it.

    Though, personally, I would give a higher chance to having a global homosexuality rather than bisexuality.
    All of the 1st paragraph is not supported by any modern medical or psychological research
    This was based on my personal observation in environments such as I stated above and after doing some Q&A's with people who have changed their sexual orientation and some of those who did not change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society? They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society? They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    Just to clear somethings, I'm not against bisexuality or homosexuality or any type of sexuality because I just don't really care.
    Again, based on persona observations, most of the males who changed their sexual orientation told me that their relationship with females didn't work so they switched to males but still kept sexual attractiveness to females because they didn't want or feel like the need to become fully homosexual.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Biologically we're capable of just about anything. .
    Hence the paranoid sheep on Welsh hillsides.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society?
    For one thing, they are an endangered species.
    They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    By what criteria do you call them "mentally advanced"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Bonobo, our closest living relative (which is why some scientist was to reclassify their Genus as Homo rather than Pan), are endangered mostly by poaching and habitat destruction--left alone, they've been pretty successful to this point their social cooperation is very high level.

    By what criteria do you call them "mentally advanced"?

    The next most intelligent animal to humans on the planet...by human concepts of intelligence.

    Write's basic assertion is correct though--there's no reason to introduce the bias terms "problem" with reference to homosexuality--the social sciences dumped that bias decades ago.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society? They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    Just to clear somethings, I'm not against bisexuality or homosexuality or any type of sexuality because I just don't really care.
    Again, based on persona observations, most of the males who changed their sexual orientation told me that their relationship with females didn't work so they switched to males but still kept sexual attractiveness to females because they didn't want or feel like the need to become fully homosexual.
    So you ahve been talking to Bisexual males, as opposed to talking to gay males. How many men have you actually talk to overall?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    hassanhadi,

    I assume you live in a muslim country? Is homosexuality outlawed? Strict cultural laws about modesty and abstinence?

    IMO, when you start to repress sexual urges in both male and female, this fundamental drive for procreation will cause enormous emotional pressures, both for love and competition, and ultimately war.

    Sparta was a perfect example of a sexual repressive system, where boy soldiers were housed together for extended periods of time and homosexual behavior was very much apparent. This did not in any way impact their ability as soldiers, in fact IMO, this intimate bonding produced a buddy system where each would protect the other with his life.
    But women were no more than chattel in those days, completely subservient to the male and all subservient to the Alpha Male.
    But statements such as from Ahmadinejad that there are no homosexuals in Iran is patently absurd. They just stay well hidden, lest they be beheaded

    Many years ago I was a merchant marine at sea for several months. My frustration exhibited itself in an urge to draw nude women and masturbating to the erotic images, no matter how crude I drew them.

    Mess with the fundamental laws of Mother Nature and she will exact a price in frustration, anger, hatred, and antisocial behavior. But nothing a little love could'nt cure.
    Last edited by Write4U; February 25th, 2013 at 03:08 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society?
    For one thing, they are an endangered species.
    They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    By what criteria do you call them "mentally advanced"?
    By hominid standards. I did not say the were the most advanced species mentally, just socially very liberal and welcoming of strangers and sharing of food and sexual comfort, rather than reject them at the gate as does the common chimp, which is probably most human like in behavior.
    The common male chimps are a nasty bunch, forever competing for power, mates, territory, and inflict extreme cruelty with purpose. The Common Chimp is scary, big strong, very smart and being an omnivore, will gladly hunt and kill anything that may provide a tasty meal.

    Bonobos live symbiotically rather than predatory. And if they are endangered it is because man (the only one smarter)is taking their habitat. Bonobos are a native hominid and due to their low death-rate they reproduce slowly, in spite of the frequent sex. Small stable communities of Bonobos might well be seen as similar (one evolutionary step below) to other "primitive" natural human societies, such as the bushman in Australia, pygmies or masai in Africa, eskimos in Polar regions.
    Last edited by Write4U; February 25th, 2013 at 04:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I would not exclude having a "global bisexuality".. Most of bisexuality is caused by either psychological or hormonal problems, others..
    Why should we need to use the term "problems" when it involves consenting responsible adults in loving and empathic relationships? What problem is there with the Bonobo chimp society?
    For one thing, they are an endangered species.
    They are possibly the most peaceful mentally advanced species. They still live in Eden, unashamed.
    The Bonobo motto truly is "make love, not war".
    By what criteria do you call them "mentally advanced"?
    By hominid standards. I did not say the were the most advanced species mentally, just socially very liberal and welcoming of strangers and sharing of food and sexual comfort, rather than reject them at the gate as does the common chimp, which is probably most human like in behavior.
    The common male chimps are a nasty bunch, forever competing for power, mates, territory, and inflict extreme cruelty with purpose. The Common Chimp is scary, big strong, very smart and being an omnivore, will gladly hunt and kill anything that may provide a tasty meal.

    Bonobos live symbiotically rather than predatory. And if they are endangered it is because man (the only one smarter)is taking their habitat. Bonobos are a native hominid and due to their low death-rate they reproduce slowly, in spite of the frequent sex. Small stable communities of Bonobos might well be seen as similar (one evolutionary step below) to other "primitive" natural human societies, such as the bushman in Australia, pygmies or masai in Africa, eskimos in Polar regions.
    Use of the word "problems" shows a bias but so do the words "nasty" and "cruelty" and the characterization as "living in Eden." This seems like an old-fashioned, romantic way of looking at animal behavior.
    I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with the bonobo example. Just because they are close relatives to humans does not mean that they are a model for human behavior, any more than the common chimp, which is just as closely related and intelligent. Humans have language and so are capable of passing down culture in a way that makes their behavior far different and more versatile than chimpanzees.
    The bonobos, and chimps, are endangered because of human encroachment on their habitat, but also because their suitable habitat is limited, and they are not very adaptable. I don't know what part their sexual behavior plays in that, if any.
    I don't know why bonobos aren't riddled with sexually transmitted diseases, as are humans with a similar lifestyle (prostitutes, porn film actors, etc.). Perhaps their geographic isolation plays a part in it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I agree in general, but the topic question is if bisexual society is possible. The answer is clearly yes as they have existed in the past and still exist today in small pockets of isolated tribes.

    It is an interesting observation that sexually transmitted diseases are rare in these small communites, yet is rampant in very restrictive societies where sexual expression has to be hidden in the shadows and conducted in the dark and is often forced instead of consentual. Perhaps relegating sex to something "dirty" actually is a self fulfilling prophesy. Call it dirty and it becomes dirty in mind and expression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I agree in general, but the topic question is if bisexual society is possible. The answer is clearly yes as they have existed in the past and still exist today in small pockets of isolated tribes.

    It is an interesting observation that sexually transmitted diseases are rare in these small communites, yet is rampant in very restrictive societies where sexual expression has to be hidden in the shadows and conducted in the dark and is often forced instead of consentual. Perhaps relegating sex to something "dirty" actually is a self fulfilling prophesy. Call it dirty and it becomes dirty in mind and expression.
    I don't think the various bacteria, viruses, lice, etc., really care if someone thinks sex is dirty or not, if the sex is conducted in the dark or is consensual. They just infect people who have sex with an infected partner.

    I think probably isolated hunting gathering populations have less chance of encountering the disease. More complex societies where there is more contact with other people gives the diseases a better chance to spread. This required societies to develop customs that would limit the spread of disease - hence all the sexual taboos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I agree in general, but the topic question is if bisexual society is possible. The answer is clearly yes as they have existed in the past and still exist today in small pockets of isolated tribes.

    It is an interesting observation that sexually transmitted diseases are rare in these small communites, yet is rampant in very restrictive societies where sexual expression has to be hidden in the shadows and conducted in the dark and is often forced instead of consentual. Perhaps relegating sex to something "dirty" actually is a self fulfilling prophesy. Call it dirty and it becomes dirty in mind and expression.
    I don't think the various bacteria, viruses, lice, etc., really care if someone thinks sex is dirty or not, if the sex is conducted in the dark or is consensual. They just infect people who have sex with an infected partner.
    True, but it still speaks of unhygienic practises, which is different than exotic practises performed in a responsible manner. Human are as resistant as any other animal to viruses, it is just that our behavior has such enormous diversity, that hygiene is often overlooked with disasterous results.

    I think probably isolated hunting gathering populations have less chance of encountering the disease. More complex societies where there is more contact with other people gives the diseases a better chance to spread. This required societies to develop customs that would limit the spread of disease - hence all the sexual taboos.
    That makes perfect sense to me, but it also begs the question if we should have sexually restrictive laws, because of hygiene alone?
    A hive mentality, whereby only strictly functional behavior is allowed or you are discarded as useless to the hive....harsh...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    11
    I feel that sexual orientation is a societal label for sexual behavior. The term homosexuality is a label used by society to characterize sexual acts that the main stream sees as different themselves. I have had sex with women who enjoy having sexual interactions with other women all while having sex with me. I never saw my gf as gay or bisexual. In nature bisexuality occurs but not in the capacity that it occurs in the human race. I am what society considers as straight but I have had sexaul experiences with men where I have have received oral sex from a man before. This does not make me bisexual
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by sciencematters28 View Post
    I feel that sexual orientation is a societal label for sexual behavior. The term homosexuality is a label used by society to characterize sexual acts that the main stream sees as different themselves. I have had sex with women who enjoy having sexual interactions with other women all while having sex with me. I never saw my gf as gay or bisexual. In nature bisexuality occurs but not in the capacity that it occurs in the human race. I am what society considers as straight but I have had sexaul experiences with men where I have have received oral sex from a man before. This does not make me bisexual
    And then in some societies you're gay only if you're having sex done to you. Each society puts its unique spin on sex roles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    statements such as from Ahmadinejad that there are no homosexuals in Iran is patently absurd.
    That's a popular misunderstanding. In Iranian society, physical sexual characteristics are secondary to gender. A man who's attracted to men, is considered a woman in mind and spirit. While in Western countries the "problem" is having a psychology inappropriate for one's body, in Iran it's the other way around. That's why the government subsidizes sex change procedures for anyone who identifies as ...having the same sex body as the objects of their attractions. It's not forced; it's more like a human right. Moreover, what Westerners would recognize as gay couples enjoy legal marriage in Iran, because the state readily accepts gender reassignment before people change their sex.

    So, what Ahmadinejad (is translated to have) said is more nuanced and less sinister than haters would like to believe. The Iranian perspective offers some good ideas among the bad. Nothing compatible with global bisexuality though.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    statements such as from Ahmadinejad that there are no homosexuals in Iran is patently absurd.
    That's a popular misunderstanding. In Iranian society, physical sexual characteristics are secondary to gender. A man who's attracted to men, is considered a woman in mind and spirit. While in Western countries the "problem" is having a psychology inappropriate for one's body, in Iran it's the other way around. That's why the government subsidizes sex change procedures for anyone who identifies as ...having the same sex body as the objects of their attractions. It's not forced; it's more like a human right. Moreover, what Westerners would recognize as gay couples enjoy legal marriage in Iran, because the state readily accepts gender reassignment before people change their sex.

    So, what Ahmadinejad (is translated to have) said is more nuanced and less sinister than haters would like to believe. The Iranian perspective offers some good ideas among the bad. Nothing compatible with global bisexuality though.
    Thanks for that new perspective, is there a link you can refer to for that analysis? It sounds a little forced but then I am trying to see this from the most generous interpretation as compared to knee jerk condemnation, to which I admit after hearing the translated speech.

    btw. I am not a hater and would love to see everyone get along. I am afraid of religions in general because they all claim exclusive truth and are willing to kill and die for the favor of an imaginary being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    The cultural perspective was from some radio interview (?). Legal status from Wikipedia. Suppression of any other than heterosexuality in Iran is obvious, but I thought we better understand what the President meant and why, than repeat it out of context to make him sound naive.

    I think the notion of girl trapped in boy's body also exists in Pakistan... maybe elsewhere? It means at least half the participants aren't considered gay.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    hassanhadi,

    I assume you live in a muslim country? Is homosexuality outlawed? Strict cultural laws about modesty and abstinence?

    IMO, when you start to repress sexual urges in both male and female, this fundamental drive for procreation will cause enormous emotional pressures, both for love and competition, and ultimately war.

    Sparta was a perfect example of a sexual repressive system, where boy soldiers were housed together for extended periods of time and homosexual behavior was very much apparent. This did not in any way impact their ability as soldiers, in fact IMO, this intimate bonding produced a buddy system where each would protect the other with his life.
    But women were no more than chattel in those days, completely subservient to the male and all subservient to the Alpha Male.
    But statements such as from Ahmadinejad that there are no homosexuals in Iran is patently absurd. They just stay well hidden, lest they be beheaded

    Many years ago I was a merchant marine at sea for several months. My frustration exhibited itself in an urge to draw nude women and masturbating to the erotic images, no matter how crude I drew them.

    Mess with the fundamental laws of Mother Nature and she will exact a price in frustration, anger, hatred, and antisocial behavior. But nothing a little love could'nt cure.
    Write4U,

    I don't like the term "Muslim country" because it's obviously false, I, myself, live in a country with a Muslim majority, we're not ruled by Sharia law because not all of us are Muslims and Sharia law only applies on those who claim themselves to be Muslims.

    Away from Islamic talk, on a cultural -at least neutral basis-.. Most of us, even the Iraqi atheists, at least those whom I know, don't like the concept of homosexuality, specially in men, because of homosexuals who appear on television are more feminine, people consider it as a "threat" to their masculinity.. And since I grew up in a environment where you have to be become a man to define your position, those who were thought to be more masculine weren't much loved by the society.. On a personal opinion leave, I don't care if you're a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual or any sexual.. If you're nice to me I'm nice to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    this fundamental drive for procreation will cause enormous emotional pressures, both for love and competition, and ultimately war.
    False, humanity has seen wars since the beginning of time and God knows when it will ever stop. It never had to do with homosexuality, if 2 homosexual humans wanted to have a war then they will have a war, if two heterosexual humans want peace then there will be peace.. Regardless of their sexuality.

    Iran is not a MUSLIM country and I really don't like them.. The REAL Islamic law on Homosexuality is as follows: Those who become homosexual by their full mental choice are not considered Muslim anymore but Muslims are obligated to be nice with them, treat them kindly and equally with everyone.. Those who are born homosexual, let's say a biological factor may remain as Muslims and Sharia law is applied to them.

    “A person is not to be blamed for his nature. Rather, he is to be blamed if he acts according to his nature.” -Al-Junayd in ‘Hilyat al-Awliya”

    Homosexuality is not a fundamental law of nature, well at least for humans.. Homosexuality developed among humans.. It's a personal choice or you're born with it.. I've seen many people who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I'm sorry, but apparently I did not explain myself very well. I was not trying to connect homosexuality with wars, only that sexual frustration plays a great part in aggressive behavior.

    The second point I was trying to make is that religions, in order to teach morality, often become too sexually restrictive and oppressive, because sex is considered a "dirty act". The Qur'an forbids a man from making love to his wife if she is menstruating, because she is unclean during that period. This is soo wrong in principle that I am afraid it will take another century for "superstitions", "witchcraft", and "demon possession" to disppear and we can look at these issues from an objective scientific viewpoint.

    Finally, perhaps secular law may be the law of the land, but what good does that do if some cleric in a town can declare a fatwah, when the town is held by islamist extremists and they beat a woman for showing a bare ankle, or stone someone to death for "whatever". And you are telling me that homosexuals voluntarily get physically readjusted to match their hormonal chemistry. What if they refuse and are cast out, what becomes of them? Death to the Infidel?

    While you may claim that a predominantly Muslim country is not necessarily a theocracy and is ruled by secular law, the fact is that "mixing religion with affairs of state" is tolerated and even encouraged in several predominantly Islamic countries. Even if the government is chosen democratically, if it does not strictly enforce secular law and strictly forbid the application of biblical law, it becomes a "de facto theocracy".

    This is dangerous, because religion claims it is the revealed word from God and trumps secular law, and it is obvious that there are many areas which are ruled locally by Sharia law. Anyone that does not see that is refusing to look. Threatening to assassinate an Afghanistan girl because she plays squash ? That is terrorism and these people need to be locked up. Until "seperation of church and state" becomes part of "secular law" and is enforced equally to all, forgive me if I remain skeptical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Probably best to stick to the sexuality topic.

    “A person is not to be blamed for his nature. Rather, he is to be blamed if he acts according to his nature.” -Al-Junayd in ‘Hilyat al-Awliya”

    Homosexuality is not a fundamental law of nature, well at least for humans.. Homosexuality developed among humans.. It's a personal choice or you're born with it.. I've seen many people who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.. "
    I like the quote, but it appears to be in conflict with the next sentence. Most of the research suggest homosexuality is fundamental to many species, including humans, and for most of them difficult if not imposible to change from an attraction point of view; as your first quote suggest though, many homosexual do find sexual satisfaction (or relief might be a better description) in heteoro relationships, just as many heteorosexuals find sexual satifaction in homosexual acts under the right circumstances, such as lack of available sex-partners of their preference.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I don't like the term "Muslim country" because it's obviously false, I, myself, live in a country with a Muslim majority, we're not ruled by Sharia law because not all of us are Muslims and Sharia law only applies on those who claim themselves to be Muslims.
    It is hard for me to see how you arrive at this interpretation. The official name of the country is "Islamic Republic of Iran." The official religion of the country is Shia Islam. By the constitution, political power ultimately lies with Muslims.
    Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    all democratic procedures and rights are subordinate to the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader
    Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Iranian constitution calls for the council to be composed of six Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law), "conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day" to be selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and six jurists, "specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis (the Iranian Parliament) from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power,"[2] (who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    U.S.A
    Posts
    414
    I think people could just not care. They find friend ship with a same sex person. They engage in partial sexual activity such as kissing.
    They could be called bysexual. Or it could be just two people kissing. One day people could perchance relive themselves of unnecessary social rules and simply be honest. In the right world sure it can be.

    It certainly sounds like a ideal world, not relating to this subject but the subject of freedom and the education to be honest and intelligent and with that this is a small part of what could result.

    Basically: In the right world, Yes.
    Will that right world come to us in our lifetimes or will it ever come? I don't know.
    Maybe we can force it upon us? That's a choice we face beside the people who simply hope and wait.
    With bravery and recognition that we are harbingers of our destiny and with a paragon of virtue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I'm sorry, but apparently I did not explain myself very well. I was not trying to connect homosexuality with wars, only that sexual frustration plays a great part in aggressive behavior.

    The second point I was trying to make is that religions, in order to teach morality, often become too sexually restrictive and oppressive, because sex is considered a "dirty act". The Qur'an forbids a man from making love to his wife if she is menstruating, because she is unclean during that period. This is soo wrong in principle that I am afraid it will take another century for "superstitions", "witchcraft", and "demon possession" to disppear and we can look at these issues from an objective scientific viewpoint.

    Finally, perhaps secular law may be the law of the land, but what good does that do if some cleric in a town can declare a fatwah, when the town is held by islamist extremists and they beat a woman for showing a bare ankle, or stone someone to death for "whatever". And you are telling me that homosexuals voluntarily get physically readjusted to match their hormonal chemistry. What if they refuse and are cast out, what becomes of them? Death to the Infidel?

    While you may claim that a predominantly Muslim country is not necessarily a theocracy and is ruled by secular law, the fact is that "mixing religion with affairs of state" is tolerated and even encouraged in several predominantly Islamic countries. Even if the government is chosen democratically, if it does not strictly enforce secular law and strictly forbid the application of biblical law, it becomes a "de facto theocracy".

    This is dangerous, because religion claims it is the revealed word from God and trumps secular law, and it is obvious that there are many areas which are ruled locally by Sharia law. Anyone that does not see that is refusing to look. Threatening to assassinate an Afghanistan girl because she plays squash ? That is terrorism and these people need to be locked up. Until "seperation of church and state" becomes part of "secular law" and is enforced equally to all, forgive me if I remain skeptical.
    Not really, I know how to hold down my sexual desire perfectly, yes I have "temptations" but I know how to control them and still remain calm, it mostly goes to the nature of the person, some people might have a "high sexual drive" and thus might become aggressive as you have stated.

    I really don't think that religion, whether it's Christianity or Islam or any religion that forbids before marriage sex is oppressive.. In here, it's the western vs. the eastern civilization, from what I have seen in America at least, before marriage sex is pretty common, while America has higher divorce rates than in Arabic countries, while in Arabic countries barely 1 out of a million have before marriage sex and have higher rates of marriage success.. From what I have seen, 16 and Pregnant and kissing pretty much lead to before marriage sex... Sexual activity isn't really given that much attention among society.. Just kept for the married away from the minors. And about the during menstruation sex I don't think that resembles a difficulty, I don't think there should be a problem with having sex not in the time of menstruation, it really just differs on the point of view from where you see it.. And I don't think really Islam talks about superstitions/witchcraft/demon possession and gives it a big deal, but it forbidden witchcraft.. It's not given that much of attention and pretty much no one really cares about it..

    "Finally, perhaps secular law may be the law of the land, but what good does that do if some cleric in a town can declare a fatwah, when the town is held by islamist extremists and they beat a woman for showing a bare ankle, or stone someone to death for "whatever" What the fuck.. First of all, "Islamist extremists" are not real Muslims since that part has extremism.. You either be a moderate Muslims or you just leave Islam.. Islam forbids you going to kill yourself and kill others in the name of Allah.. It's considered suicide not Jihad, (Clarification, Jihad happens in the case of battle or wars with enemies).. Beating an innocent person who ever their gender is, a male, a female, an alien is COMPLETELY FORBIDDEN by Islam.. You have no right of hurting someone who has not hurt you, and it's even better to just leave them rather than hurting them back... And by the way, no Muslim can declare a Fatwa by himself just because it suits him... It's forbidden... Again, many misunderstanding.. Muslims MUST NOT hurt anyone regardless of their religion.. If an Infidel hurts a Muslims, whether it's physically or verbally, the Muslim has the right to fight back but it's recommended just to leave the atheist..

    Regarding the theocracy, I'm against it.. I don't like the idea of mixing religion with politics since it 99.9% never goes well.. From my conversations with fellow Arabs, Muslims/Christians and Atheists.. We came up to the conclusion of separating religious system from the human system.. By giving the government it's own rules to be applied on everyone, and putting a religious leader (such as the Pope) who has knowledge in religion and rules with justice and such.. I've never been a fan of mixing religion with governments.. I'm somewhat against Saudi Arabia and Iran's decision of putting religion as the method.. Iraq's major religion is Islam, but they still rule with "democracy" and it's applied to everyone, so comes for Jordan, Lebanon and many other Arabic countries.. Somewhat like America, even though it's a Christianity-major country, it's still putting away religion from politics.

    It's not dangerous but the people who put themselves in the higher positions in that religion do not know how to handle the responsibility of such position, thus leading to failure.. Yet again an another misunderstanding, Sharia law is only applied to Muslims, not Christians not Atheists.. It's for Muslims, secular law is pretty much for everyone.. It's like Islam is a football team, Christianity is a football team, Judaism is a football team and then you have the league management... The threatening are completely wrong Islamic-ally and it's forbidden to threaten anyone.. The people who threaten are terrorists not the religion..

    Dat long post '-'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Probably best to stick to the sexuality topic.

    “A person is not to be blamed for his nature. Rather, he is to be blamed if he acts according to his nature.” -Al-Junayd in ‘Hilyat al-Awliya”

    Homosexuality is not a fundamental law of nature, well at least for humans.. Homosexuality developed among humans.. It's a personal choice or you're born with it.. I've seen many people who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality.. "
    I like the quote, but it appears to be in conflict with the next sentence. Most of the research suggest homosexuality is fundamental to many species, including humans, and for most of them difficult if not impossible to change from an attraction point of view; as your first quote suggest though, many homosexual do find sexual satisfaction (or relief might be a better description) in hetero relationships, just as many heterosexual find sexual satisfaction in homosexual acts under the right circumstances, such as lack of available sex-partners of their preference.
    The next sentence is my own opinion, and you're right.. lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I don't like the term "Muslim country" because it's obviously false, I, myself, live in a country with a Muslim majority, we're not ruled by Sharia law because not all of us are Muslims and Sharia law only applies on those who claim themselves to be Muslims.
    It is hard for me to see how you arrive at this interpretation. The official name of the country is "Islamic Republic of Iran." The official religion of the country is Shia Islam. By the constitution, political power ultimately lies with Muslims.
    Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    all democratic procedures and rights are subordinate to the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leader
    Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    The Iranian constitution calls for the council to be composed of six Islamic faqihs (expert in Islamic Law), "conscious of the present needs and the issues of the day" to be selected by the Supreme Leader of Iran, and six jurists, "specializing in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis (the Iranian Parliament) from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Head of the Judicial Power,"[2] (who, in turn, is also appointed by the supreme leader).
    Oh God, how much I hate Iran and Saudi Arabia.. Those are what you would call "extremest countries" I don't even think that God would allow them to put religion as the ruling system.. It's just awful what they do in the name of religion.. They're using religion as a shield for them, because of the majority of Iran are Muslims and then putting oppression so they won't be removed from the "steering wheel"..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    hassnhadi;397752,
    Oh God, how much I hate Iran and Saudi Arabia.. Those are what you would call "extremest countries" I don't even think that God would allow them to put religion as the ruling system.. It's just awful what they do in the name of religion.. They're using religion as a shield for them, because of the majority of Iran are Muslims and then putting oppression so they won't be removed from the "steering wheel"..
    I don't hate any country or people, or even religion. Everything evolves and with greater knowledge we learn more about the universe and how things work.
    The one thing that does not seem to evolve is scripture, which by definition is the revealed truth. But how was this truth revealed and who was it revealed to?

    Prophets are wonderful, their writings display insight and morality, Kahlil Gibran is one of my favorite philosophers. But where all knowledge is advancing and universal functions become better understood, Scripture stands as the lone straggler, mired in the mud of ignorance and superstition, clinging to old taboos such as "unclean pork" (trichinosis is no longer a problem as it was 2000 years ago) and "demon possession" (unidentifiable illnesses), which must be exorcised!

    However, there are some timelessly true laws which are important to observe, such as "incest". We now know that this is a genetically dangerous practise, which can be observed in nature and will never change, due to the actual functions involved.

    Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call "inbreeding depression," a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a 25 percent chance of having hemophilia.
    The Golden Rule is another wonderful secular ethical message.

    Thus scripture does address some timeless truths, but certainly a lot of information was founded on incorrect interpretation of how things work in the universe and a lot of declared truths are not true at all. But whereas science and technology and medicine have advanced, theology has stood still, ever more isolated because of its determined clinging to The Word.

    If clergy were brave enought to reexamine Scripture and discard false and useless information and keep the moral messages in harmony with what science knows to be true, we could begin to heal the rifts and acquire the wisdom to respect all human relationships if they are rooted in true love.

    We might even end up with a Global Bible which all people can use as a guide for living ethical and productive lives.
    Last edited by Write4U; February 27th, 2013 at 01:39 AM.
    Lynx_Fox likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by hassnhadi View Post
    I don't like the term "Muslim country" because it's obviously false, I, myself, live in a country with a Muslim majority, we're not ruled by Sharia law because not all of us are Muslims and Sharia law only applies on those who claim themselves to be Muslims.
    It is hard for me to see how you arrive at this interpretation. The official name of the country is "Islamic Republic of Iran." The official religion of the country is Shia Islam...
    You may be appalled to read that Canada is a monarchy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U
    there are some timelessly true laws which are important to observe, such as "incest"... scripture does address some timeless truths, but certainly a lot of information was founded on incorrect interpretation of how things work
    That's predictable, because religions that got things badly wrong tended to perish (and their people with them), while religions that got things right - often by chance - tended to thrive. Thus today's religions - being survivors - should have mostly got it right.

    Here we're most interested in how bisexuality might thrive or perish. I want to look at how the survival or extinction of a hypothetical "gay gene" relates to religious or family values.

    Traditional families were extended, with three or more generations living under one roof. Because humans readily assume specialized roles within our groups, members of extended families often benefited the family indirectly. They didn't only mate in isolation and then parent their direct offspring as do most mammals. An older sibling could assume the role of parent to younger siblings, or a non-breeding relative could cook, clean, bring bacon, etc. This is what we see in hive species. The genes responsible for non-breeding aren't selected out because those members benefit the family and therefore benefit all breeding members who carry the genes, and the next generation of non-breeding-gene-carriers, and so on. Families that include some fraction of non-breeding members may even outperform families composed entirely of breeders.

    An interesting variant of the above family is Chinese, where children are mainly cared for by retired grandparents while the middle generation devotes energy to work outside the home. In this scheme everybody is a breeder at some point in life.

    The modern Western family is nuclear, including two parents and offspring only. The idealized arrangement has two or more siblings who leave home as soon as they can fend for themselves, who each go on to form nuclear families. These families don't benefit from much specialization. In larger nuclear families one spouse might devote her life to parenting, but that's about it. Having some non-breeding children doesn't benefit the family, except where elderly empty-nested parents require care their breeding children are too burdened (by their own children) to provide. In that case it is nice but of dubious genetic advantage... therefore gay genes should die out of these families.

    The so-called "family values" ideal is nuclear, as above, and wants at least two children, who must be heterosexual breeders. This is a good strategy for perhaps a frontier homesteader with mail-order bride, who aim to spread their kind across a county. Though it explicitly resists non-breeding offspring, these become less disadvantageous (as in the basic nuclear) as number of offspring increases. I'm unsure of the number where having one extra child stay at home to care for aging parents becomes worthwhile.

    The postmodern family is usually small, and may include just one parent with offspring, or a non-parenting couple. These families work well in societies where "It takes a village to raise a child" because individual specialists contribute to a common pool that supports others, perhaps more efficiently than an extended family can among it's own members. Though non-breeding individuals may easily contribute to the collective good, I'm unsure how their hypothetical gay genes could prosper here.

    Question: Assuming a gay gene (or "non-breeder" gene), what family and society structures would most promote it?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    However, there are some timelessly true laws which are important to observe, such as "incest". We now know that this is a genetically dangerous practise, which can be observed in nature and will never change, due to the actual functions involved.
    Really? No, it just happens to be one of those taboos which has survived thus far. It doesn't need to lead to reproduction, any more than gay marriage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    However, there are some timelessly true laws which are important to observe, such as "incest". We now know that this is a genetically dangerous practise, which can be observed in nature and will never change, due to the actual functions involved.
    Really? No, it just happens to be one of those taboos which has survived thus far. It doesn't need to lead to reproduction, any more than gay marriage.
    Gay behavior is not a natural taboo. It occurs everywhere as an early expression of love or dominance in the pack. It cannot lead to reproduction at all.
    OTOH, heterosexual incest does lead to reproduction with an increased risk of genetic abnormalities. That is why it became taboo in the world of hominids. In nature any damaged offspring will just be eliminated by natural selection or somehow adapt.

    An interesting example is the silvery salamander, which does not need male sperm at all. As a result all silvery slamanders are female and clones of the mother. Luckily we have discovered a few small families, which are now strictly protected, due to their vulnerability of being all genetically identical.

    IMO, all these behaviors are part of the built in drive for diversity, for in diversity lies adaptibility and survival.

    The mixing of DNA seems to be the most successful for producing sophisticated organisms able to adapt or adjust to almost any environment.
    Last edited by Write4U; February 27th, 2013 at 05:47 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore Hassnhadi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Iraq~
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    hassnhadi;397752,
    Oh God, how much I hate Iran and Saudi Arabia.. Those are what you would call "extremest countries" I don't even think that God would allow them to put religion as the ruling system.. It's just awful what they do in the name of religion.. They're using religion as a shield for them, because of the majority of Iran are Muslims and then putting oppression so they won't be removed from the "steering wheel"..
    I don't hate any country or people, or even religion. Everything evolves and with greater knowledge we learn more about the universe and how things work.
    The one thing that does not seem to evolve is scripture, which by definition is the revealed truth. But how was this truth revealed and who was it revealed to?

    Prophets are wonderful, their writings display insight and morality, Kahlil Gibran is one of my favorite philosophers. But where all knowledge is advancing and universal functions become better understood, Scripture stands as the lone straggler, mired in the mud of ignorance and superstition, clinging to old taboos such as "unclean pork" (trichinosis is no longer a problem as it was 2000 years ago) and "demon possession" (unidentifiable illnesses), which must be exorcised!

    However, there are some timelessly true laws which are important to observe, such as "incest". We now know that this is a genetically dangerous practise, which can be observed in nature and will never change, due to the actual functions involved.

    Such offspring have a much higher chance of death before reaching the age of reproduction, leading to what biologists call "inbreeding depression," a measurable decrease in fitness due to inbreeding among populations with deleterious recessives. Recessive genes, which can contain various genetic problems, appear more often in the offspring of procreative couplings whose members both have the same gene. For example, the child of persons who are both hemophiliac has a 25 percent chance of having hemophilia.
    The Golden Rule is another wonderful secular ethical message.

    Thus scripture does address some timeless truths, but certainly a lot of information was founded on incorrect interpretation of how things work in the universe and a lot of declared truths are not true at all. But whereas science and technology and medicine have advanced, theology has stood still, ever more isolated because of its determined clinging to The Word.

    If clergy were brave enought to reexamine Scripture and discard false and useless information and keep the moral messages in harmony with what science knows to be true, we could begin to heal the rifts and acquire the wisdom to respect all human relationships if they are rooted in true love.

    We might even end up with a Global Bible which all people can use as a guide for living ethical and productive lives.
    Global Bible?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Gay behavior is not a natural taboo. It occurs everywhere as an early expression of love or dominance in the pack. It cannot lead to reproduction at all.
    OTOH, heterosexual incest does lead to reproduction with an increased risk of genetic abnormalities. That is why it became taboo in the world of hominids. In nature any damaged offspring will just be eliminated by natural selection or somehow adapt.
    Most if not all sex taboos served some purpose. Prevention of disease, prevention of teen pregnancy. Nowadays we just pass out the condoms. Voila. You are just arguing against incest because it's the one taboo you are still holding onto.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Gay behavior is not a natural taboo. It occurs everywhere as an early expression of love or dominance in the pack. It cannot lead to reproduction at all.
    OTOH, heterosexual incest does lead to reproduction with an increased risk of genetic abnormalities. That is why it became taboo in the world of hominids. In nature any damaged offspring will just be eliminated by natural selection or somehow adapt.
    Most if not all sex taboos served some purpose. Prevention of disease, prevention of teen pregnancy. Nowadays we just pass out the condoms. Voila. You are just arguing against incest because it's the one taboo you are still holding onto.
    I doubt that. Most of the one's actually protective such as incest are often hardwired into other animals because they lead to lower natural selection-- many others, such as prohibitions against masturbation have no such connection, still others such as the prohibition against sex before marriage--often arranged before puberty with first pregnancy as dangerously young girls, where more likely cultural constructs to preserve "property rights." And yes, of course, modern medicine and other cultural characteristics such as good hygiene, make some practices that might have lowered survival in the past, rather moot.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Most of the one's actually protective such as incest are often hardwired into other animals because they lead to lower natural selection--
    Nice thought, but if it were hardwired we wouldn't need laws or cultural taboos. It would just be something people never did. But since we do have laws and cultural taboos, I think it shoots that theory.
    many others, such as prohibitions against masturbation have no such connection,
    How do you know what connection there might be?
    still others such as the prohibition against sex before marriage--often arranged before puberty with first pregnancy as dangerously young girls, where more likely cultural constructs to preserve "property rights."
    Why do you think this is more likely? It makes sense to me that a woman doesn't want to get pregnant until she has a huaband as provider to help her raise the kid. That's nothing to do with property rights.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Most of the one's actually protective such as incest are often hardwired into other animals because they lead to lower natural selection--
    Nice thought, but if it were hardwired we wouldn't need laws or cultural taboos. It would just be something people never did. But since we do have laws and cultural taboos, I think it shoots that theory.
    It not only doesn't shoot that theory, it nearly avoids it by make the illogical assumption that it's either nature or nurture, while discarding the real world examples that show combinations of both among social animals including humans.

    How do you know what connection there might be?
    A valid question answered by decades of social sciences that show there's no harmful effects whatsoever from masturbation--in fact most of the evidence leans in the opposite direction--that masturbation improves mental health and by extension might even benefit society as a whole by lessening sexual tension.

    Why do you think this is more likely? It makes sense to me that a woman doesn't want to get pregnant until she has a husband as provider to help her raise the kid. That's nothing to do with property rights.
    Women's wants seem to have little to do with many traditional cultures-- many specifically demand by scripture and other laws that they have no say in most circumstances and violations are often wildly disproportional to what ever harm comes to women or that society as a whole. But of course, when written, cost were probably much higher because of scarce resources.
    Write4U likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Gay behavior is not a natural taboo. It occurs everywhere as an early expression of love or dominance in the pack. It cannot lead to reproduction at all.
    OTOH, heterosexual incest does lead to reproduction with an increased risk of genetic abnormalities. That is why it became taboo in the world of hominids. In nature any damaged offspring will just be eliminated by natural selection or somehow adapt.
    Most if not all sex taboos served some purpose. Prevention of disease, prevention of teen pregnancy. Nowadays we just pass out the condoms. Voila. You are just arguing against incest because it's the one taboo you are still holding onto.
    Perhaps.
    But I'd rather think that from the "known" consequences of inbreeding in humans, we can perhaps draw a natural moral ethic. And, hassnhadi, something to include in a Global Guide to Ethical Living.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Most of the one's actually protective such as incest are often hardwired into other animals because they lead to lower natural selection--
    Nice thought, but if it were hardwired we wouldn't need laws or cultural taboos. It would just be something people never did. But since we do have laws and cultural taboos, I think it shoots that theory.
    It not only doesn't shoot that theory, it nearly avoids it by make the illogical assumption that it's either nature or nurture, while discarding the real world examples that show combinations of both among social animals including humans.
    This still doesn't give a reason why we should maintain the "nurture" part of the taboo given the ability to prevent conception, or perhaps even to avoid complications of inbreeding by genetic counseling.
    How do you know what connection there might be?
    A valid question answered by decades of social sciences that show there's no harmful effects whatsoever from masturbation--in fact most of the evidence leans in the opposite direction--that masturbation improves mental health and by extension might even benefit society as a whole by lessening sexual tension.
    You are putting way too much stock in social science. They are nowhere near being able to model a human society. Decades of medical science said the vermiform appendix was merely a vestigial structure. Now there are several possible functions postulated.
    Why do you think this is more likely? It makes sense to me that a woman doesn't want to get pregnant until she has a husband as provider to help her raise the kid. That's nothing to do with property rights.
    Women's wants seem to have little to do with many traditional cultures-- many specifically demand by scripture and other laws that they have no say in most circumstances and violations are often wildly disproportional to what ever harm comes to women or that society as a whole. But of course, when written, cost were probably much higher because of scarce resources.
    There's a lot of speculation there. Whether the women had a say or not, the taboos against premarital sex would have promoted children being raised by both parents, giving them a better chance of survival.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    if it were hardwired we wouldn't need laws or cultural taboos
    Culture and religion presume to explain or control what is already present. Like God commands you not to commit suicide.

    Your point about marriage also serving women's interests I solidly agree with. I don't believe men authored that institution anymore than Christians authored having a big family dinner in the middle of winter. Get past the dogma, you can see who's really running the show.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    This still doesn't give a reason why we should maintain the "nurture" part of the taboo given the ability to prevent conception, or perhaps even to avoid complications of inbreeding by genetic counseling.
    For one thing genetic counseling and conception are not entirely effective especially for adolescences--but that is only one reason for its prohibition.

    But the social science again helps us here, but the cost of being a victim of incest are incredible high on people's self-esteem, and many forms of adult psychological disorders. We still have well grounded good reasons to prohibit incest, and maintain laws against incest based on those reasons in most nations.


    You are putting way too much stock in social science. They are nowhere near being able to model a human society. Decades of medical science said the vermiform appendix was merely a vestigial structure. Now there are several possible functions postulated.
    And you don't put enough stock in them. Ability to model is about the highest standard, and as you surely already know, an unreasonable task or expectation in complex systems--in fact they are often impossible-- much as accurate week long forecast of hurricanes, future evolutionary models, and many other complex natural systems for which we know a great deal.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    For one thing genetic counseling and conception are not entirely effective especially for adolescences--but that is only one reason for its prohibition.
    Effectiveness of contraception and disease prevention seem to be good enough reason to get rid of the other taboos.
    Ability to model is about the highest standard, and as you surely already know, an unreasonable task or expectation in complex systems--in fact they are often impossible-- much as accurate week long forecast of hurricanes, future evolutionary models, and many other complex natural systems for which we know a great deal.
    I know. That's why you can't make such positive statements about it as you are doing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 8th, 2012, 07:43 PM
  2. Global Bias in Global Warming Science?
    By GGII in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2012, 10:21 PM
  3. Global Lights Out !!
    By Yash in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2010, 01:46 PM
  4. Global Warming
    By (In)Sanity in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2006, 11:58 PM
  5. Another Cause for Global Warming
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 31st, 2006, 12:42 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •