Poll: Is sexual orientation a recent invention?

[TheLycanKing144]

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

While I agree with the hypothesis that everyone is innately bisexual to a degree (as in, only a very small minority of people are 100% heterosexual for whatever reason), I don't agree with you using men in prison developing same-sex attraction as evidence of "choosing sexuality". No offence to anyone here, but why would anyone in their right mind "choose" to be gay in a society that condemns them for it? Especially if you're a guy?

All it means is that they were either in denial about their homosexuality and/or bisexuality, or they were already a little bi beforehand and merely needed an environment where there were no women to release their sexual frustration on the only sex that was in their prison: men.

I think sexuality is pretty much dominated by hormones. Maybe part of it is due to nurture, but most of it is nature, IMO. I'd say it's about 85% nature, 15% nurture. I could "choose" to bone my male best friend "just to try it", but it wouldn't make me gay. Sexuality is much more than someone happening to like ice cream, but not mayonnaise. No matter how much someone might want to be straight, if they only like the masculine figure, then that's what they'll be inclined to, no matter how vaginas they plough. Like how a gay man might marry a woman to "force" himself to become straight, but the marriage eventually dissolves and he stops putting on the act and officially comes out as gay. There are just as many examples to the contrary of those as you introduced, but sexuality is a complicated thing, and on a scale too.

Oh, and "innate bisexuality" was a concept invented by Sigmund Freud. The same guy that thought that men were attracted to their mothers in childhood and were scared of losing their penis after looking at girls.

To be fair, no one really knows the answer to this question, maybe we never will. I was just restating what I learned in my psychology class and it made the most sense to me (as my cousin is a lesbian but she wasn't always, it happened after her boyfriend hit on her too much). It may have been proposed by Freud, but over time others have studied and expanded on it and found it to be pretty solid.

The problem with the hormone argument is that hormones are not crossed on the genders, men obviously develop testosterone and women estrogen. It's not biological as there have been cases with identical twins where one was gay and the other was not, this is not possible if it is biological as they share the same exact DNA and everything. While I don't think it's a choice in the "on and off" switch scenario, I personally believe people can choose to either build or break down barriers if they want to.

I believe it's more environmental than anything. Much of it depends on how we see the opposite sex and the same sex, as straight men (just assuming you are) you and I see women sexually, but we see men as a different role such as friends and fathers etc...this is an identity that was instilled in us when we were younger. But if someone does not have that identity then who knows what will happen?

In the end though it is an interesting debate but I think people should really try to study more aspects of this instead of just saying quick sound bites or whatever is the more "socially acceptable" answer. However that being said the real important lesson here is that people should be treated the same and live a life free from harassment regardless of their sexual preference.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

While I agree with the hypothesis that everyone is innately bisexual to a degree (as in, only a very small minority of people are 100% heterosexual for whatever reason), I don't agree with you using men in prison developing same-sex attraction as evidence of "choosing sexuality". No offence to anyone here, but why would anyone in their right mind "choose" to be gay in a society that condemns them for it? Especially if you're a guy?

All it means is that they were either in denial about their homosexuality and/or bisexuality, or they were already a little bi beforehand and merely needed an environment where there were no women to release their sexual frustration on the only sex that was in their prison: men.

I think sexuality is pretty much dominated by hormones. Maybe part of it is due to nurture, but most of it is nature, IMO. I'd say it's about 85% nature, 15% nurture. I could "choose" to bone my male best friend "just to try it", but it wouldn't make me gay. Sexuality is much more than someone happening to like ice cream, but not mayonnaise. No matter how much someone might want to be straight, if they only like the masculine figure, then that's what they'll be inclined to, no matter how vaginas they plough. Like how a gay man might marry a woman to "force" himself to become straight, but the marriage eventually dissolves and he stops putting on the act and officially comes out as gay. There are just as many examples to the contrary of those as you introduced, but sexuality is a complicated thing, and on a scale too.

Oh, and "innate bisexuality" was a concept invented by Sigmund Freud. The same guy that thought that men were attracted to their mothers in childhood and were scared of losing their penis after looking at girls.

To be fair, no one really knows the answer to this question, maybe we never will. I was just restating what I learned in my psychology class and it made the most sense to me (as my cousin is a lesbian but she wasn't always, it happened after her boyfriend hit on her too much). It may have been proposed by Freud, but over time others have studied and expanded on it and found it to be pretty solid.

The problem with the hormone argument is that hormones are not crossed on the genders, men obviously develop testosterone and women estrogen. It's not biological as there have been cases with identical twins where one was gay and the other was not, this is not possible if it is biological as they share the same exact DNA and everything. While I don't think it's a choice in the "on and off" switch scenario, I personally believe people can choose to either build or break down barriers if they want to.

I believe it's more environmental than anything. Much of it depends on how we see the opposite sex and the same sex, as straight men (just assuming you are) you and I see women sexually, but we see men as a different role such as friends and fathers etc...this is an identity that was instilled in us when we were younger. But if someone does not have that identity then who knows what will happen?

In the end though it is an interesting debate but I think people should really try to study more aspects of this instead of just saying quick sound bites or whatever is the more "socially acceptable" answer. However that being said the real important lesson here is that people should be treated the same and live a life free from harassment regardless of their sexual preference.

That's fair enough. I wasn't dismissing your opinion; I was just saying that I don't necessarily agree with it. I should clarify that I don't think it's 100% biological. Probably about 85% hormones, 15% environment. Which is why, as you said, you can get identical twins where one's gay and the other's not. But it's not as if identical twins in any scenario are similar in anything other than appearance.

But the reason I'm sceptical about your notion that sexuality is more environmental than anything is because, as I aforementioned, there are arguably just as many examples to the contrary of your examples. E.g. a gay teenage boy growing up in a Christian household. Environment dictates that he should be straight, right? Or a child growing up with gay parents, but he doesn't turn out gay.

But hey, we don't really know what makes a person straight, gay, bi, pan, whatever (and I don't think we're entirely sure on what makes a person transgender), so I guess it's all speculation.

 

[Matthewmagic]

Do you think the concept of sexual orientation, such as being strictly attracted to the same or opposite gender, is a recent invention/concept or do you disagree? Based off of your answer, explain why.
Also, what do you think of my hypothesis/theory/whatever term you'd like to use? Does it seem like a relatively good one for someone with no experience, or does it have a lot of flaws?

((P.S. I know the poll is messed up. It's not letting me fix it. Just choose yes, no, or other instead.))

I disagree. Here is why; People seldom think of sexual preference in terms of any other preference. For instance if someone where to tell you they like oranges but do not like apples, no one would try to tell that person they are wrong. Only with sexual preference is there any kind of deep consideration about what makes person a like dick and person b like vag. It is rather alarming that we try to complicate something so basic and simple. Some people just like different things. My reasons for preferring men to women(romantically) may be different then the next "team dick" members.

Your hypothesis has one major flaw. Women where property not too long ago. They didn't have a say and all we have to go on are history book accounts of what relationships where like back then. That is kinda like using twilight to show what relationships are like today. Women where sold to men, that doesn't mean homosexual/bisexual relationships didn't happen. It just means that they were more of a secret back then.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

While I agree with the hypothesis that everyone is innately bisexual to a degree (as in, only a very small minority of people are 100% heterosexual for whatever reason), I don't agree with you using men in prison developing same-sex attraction as evidence of "choosing sexuality". No offence to anyone here, but why would anyone in their right mind "choose" to be gay in a society that condemns them for it? Especially if you're a guy?

All it means is that they were either in denial about their homosexuality and/or bisexuality, or they were already a little bi beforehand and merely needed an environment where there were no women to release their sexual frustration on the only sex that was in their prison: men.

I think sexuality is pretty much dominated by hormones. Maybe part of it is due to nurture, but most of it is nature, IMO. I'd say it's about 85% nature, 15% nurture. I could "choose" to bone my male best friend "just to try it", but it wouldn't make me gay. Sexuality is much more than someone happening to like ice cream, but not mayonnaise. No matter how much someone might want to be straight, if they only like the masculine figure, then that's what they'll be inclined to, no matter how vaginas they plough. Like how a gay man might marry a woman to "force" himself to become straight, but the marriage eventually dissolves and he stops putting on the act and officially comes out as gay. There are just as many examples to the contrary of those as you introduced, but sexuality is a complicated thing, and on a scale too.

Oh, and "innate bisexuality" was a concept invented by Sigmund Freud. The same guy that thought that men were attracted to their mothers in childhood and were scared of losing their penis after looking at girls.

To be fair, no one really knows the answer to this question, maybe we never will. I was just restating what I learned in my psychology class and it made the most sense to me (as my cousin is a lesbian but she wasn't always, it happened after her boyfriend hit on her too much). It may have been proposed by Freud, but over time others have studied and expanded on it and found it to be pretty solid.

The problem with the hormone argument is that hormones are not crossed on the genders, men obviously develop testosterone and women estrogen. It's not biological as there have been cases with identical twins where one was gay and the other was not, this is not possible if it is biological as they share the same exact DNA and everything. While I don't think it's a choice in the "on and off" switch scenario, I personally believe people can choose to either build or break down barriers if they want to.

I believe it's more environmental than anything. Much of it depends on how we see the opposite sex and the same sex, as straight men (just assuming you are) you and I see women sexually, but we see men as a different role such as friends and fathers etc...this is an identity that was instilled in us when we were younger. But if someone does not have that identity then who knows what will happen?

In the end though it is an interesting debate but I think people should really try to study more aspects of this instead of just saying quick sound bites or whatever is the more "socially acceptable" answer. However that being said the real important lesson here is that people should be treated the same and live a life free from harassment regardless of their sexual preference.

That's fair enough. I wasn't dismissing your opinion; I was just saying that I don't necessarily agree with it. I should clarify that I don't think it's 100% biological. Probably about 85% hormones, 15% environment. Which is why, as you said, you can get identical twins where one's gay and the other's not. But it's not as if identical twins in any scenario are similar in anything other than appearance.

But the reason I'm sceptical about your notion that sexuality is more environmental than anything is because, as I aforementioned, there are arguably just as many examples to the contrary of your examples. E.g. a gay teenage boy growing up in a Christian household. Environment dictates that he should be straight, right? Or a child growing up with gay parents, but he doesn't turn out gay.

But hey, we don't really know what makes a person straight, gay, bi, pan, whatever (and I don't think we're entirely sure on what makes a person transgender), so I guess it's all speculation.

Yes at this point all we can do is really speculate, and I personally believe it's more environmental but who really knows? Just this was the explanation that made the most sense to me, in the sense of everyone having some degree of bi sexuality.

I mean I'm a straight man but I'll admit that I think some men such as Ryan Gosling or George Clooney are good looking men,they have attractive facial features. That means that there is some degree of attraction involved.

However that being said by no means do I want to have sex with either of them, or any man for that matter. The very thought makes me sick to my stomach lol. I just believe that people do have a small degree of physical attraction toward the same sex whether they want to admit it or not.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

This may not be a popular view on here, but the truth is that people can choose their sexuality. Look at prison for example, the men enter entirely straight. However due to the environment they develop same sex attractions, there are also many cases of women who are abused by their boy friends and they turn lesbians. It's a similar scenario.

While I agree with the hypothesis that everyone is innately bisexual to a degree (as in, only a very small minority of people are 100% heterosexual for whatever reason), I don't agree with you using men in prison developing same-sex attraction as evidence of "choosing sexuality". No offence to anyone here, but why would anyone in their right mind "choose" to be gay in a society that condemns them for it? Especially if you're a guy?

All it means is that they were either in denial about their homosexuality and/or bisexuality, or they were already a little bi beforehand and merely needed an environment where there were no women to release their sexual frustration on the only sex that was in their prison: men.

I think sexuality is pretty much dominated by hormones. Maybe part of it is due to nurture, but most of it is nature, IMO. I'd say it's about 85% nature, 15% nurture. I could "choose" to bone my male best friend "just to try it", but it wouldn't make me gay. Sexuality is much more than someone happening to like ice cream, but not mayonnaise. No matter how much someone might want to be straight, if they only like the masculine figure, then that's what they'll be inclined to, no matter how vaginas they plough. Like how a gay man might marry a woman to "force" himself to become straight, but the marriage eventually dissolves and he stops putting on the act and officially comes out as gay. There are just as many examples to the contrary of those as you introduced, but sexuality is a complicated thing, and on a scale too.

Oh, and "innate bisexuality" was a concept invented by Sigmund Freud. The same guy that thought that men were attracted to their mothers in childhood and were scared of losing their penis after looking at girls.

To be fair, no one really knows the answer to this question, maybe we never will. I was just restating what I learned in my psychology class and it made the most sense to me (as my cousin is a lesbian but she wasn't always, it happened after her boyfriend hit on her too much). It may have been proposed by Freud, but over time others have studied and expanded on it and found it to be pretty solid.

The problem with the hormone argument is that hormones are not crossed on the genders, men obviously develop testosterone and women estrogen. It's not biological as there have been cases with identical twins where one was gay and the other was not, this is not possible if it is biological as they share the same exact DNA and everything. While I don't think it's a choice in the "on and off" switch scenario, I personally believe people can choose to either build or break down barriers if they want to.

I believe it's more environmental than anything. Much of it depends on how we see the opposite sex and the same sex, as straight men (just assuming you are) you and I see women sexually, but we see men as a different role such as friends and fathers etc...this is an identity that was instilled in us when we were younger. But if someone does not have that identity then who knows what will happen?

In the end though it is an interesting debate but I think people should really try to study more aspects of this instead of just saying quick sound bites or whatever is the more "socially acceptable" answer. However that being said the real important lesson here is that people should be treated the same and live a life free from harassment regardless of their sexual preference.

That's fair enough. I wasn't dismissing your opinion; I was just saying that I don't necessarily agree with it. I should clarify that I don't think it's 100% biological. Probably about 85% hormones, 15% environment. Which is why, as you said, you can get identical twins where one's gay and the other's not. But it's not as if identical twins in any scenario are similar in anything other than appearance.

But the reason I'm sceptical about your notion that sexuality is more environmental than anything is because, as I aforementioned, there are arguably just as many examples to the contrary of your examples. E.g. a gay teenage boy growing up in a Christian household. Environment dictates that he should be straight, right? Or a child growing up with gay parents, but he doesn't turn out gay.

But hey, we don't really know what makes a person straight, gay, bi, pan, whatever (and I don't think we're entirely sure on what makes a person transgender), so I guess it's all speculation.

Yes at this point all we can do is really speculate, and I personally believe it's more environmental but who really knows? Just this was the explanation that made the most sense to me, in the sense of everyone having some degree of bi sexuality.

I mean I'm a straight man but I'll admit that I think some men such as Ryan Gosling or George Clooney are good looking men,they have attractive facial features. That means that there is some degree of attraction involved.

However that being said by no means do I want to have sex with either of them, or any man for that matter. The very thought makes me sick to my stomach lol. I just believe that people do have a small degree of physical attraction toward the same sex whether they want to admit it or not.

Yeah, that's true. I mean, I thought Cillian Murphy in drag in Breakfast on Pluto was pretty hot, so I don't know nor care what that says about me. I just like femininity more than masculinity.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Homosexuality (or any non-straight orientation) is not an invention, recent or otherwise. It's a natural part of the animal kingdom and is just as normal, valid and integral as heterosexuality.

Some theorists say that bisexuality is the default state of humanity (with pure heterosexuality being as rare as pure homosexuality) and that the reason so many people have a problem with same-sex sexual interactions is a result of heteronormativity and sexism, the idea that gender roles are rigid and that men who display attraction to other men (or other traits associated with the female gender) are unmanly and therefore inherently wrong and disgusting. That theory would explain why bisexuality, bicuriosity, "experimenting" and homosexuality are seen as more acceptable among women than among men (because of the sexist notions that men who do traditionally feminine things are disgusting because femininity itself is a bad thing, and that same-sex interaction for the pleasure of men is encouraged, while women's pleasure is dismissed).

I don't know if I necessarily agree with that theory as a whole, but I definitely agree that homophobia and the tolerance of lesbianism or female bisexuality are almost certainly the product of heteronormativity, sexism and rigid gender roles

This person gets it.
If I were to sum it up in a cruder way, I'd point out that people have been fucking goats since biblical times and well before, and homosexuality regularly occurs in animals.

 

[Bato]

More or less.
It's not as black and white as Modern Culture has it.

Looking in History there was no culture grouping them.
The Greek/Slavs Obviously.
The Romans only saw that the catchers were weak.
The Gauls/Celts saw it an insult to turn down their propositions.
The Norse/Germanic only had a problem with strictly gay people because that means they wouldn't have children. As long as you have a son they didn't give a crap what you do.
And there's nothing to go on for the Egyptian and Sumerian outside of what the Bible says. And the Bible says they did whatever and are terrible people because of it.

Edit:
And I was thinking culturally only at first.
Biologically yeah, sure. There are orientation niches things fall into for their culture.
The funny thing is, in other species the gay things help build cohesion and community.
They're males, with all the testosterone, but they aren't a threat to the females. And are perfect for looking after the young and women.

 

[clippen05]

Homosexuality (or any non-straight orientation) is not an invention, recent or otherwise. It's a natural part of the animal kingdom and is just as normal, valid and integral as heterosexuality.

Not really on the main subject, but how is homosexuality an "integral" part the animal kingdom. It is no way necessary to the survival of humans or any other animals that I'm aware of. And considering survival and reproduction are the basic goals of all animals, I don't see how "integral" homosexuality is.

 

[Darken12]

Or, as we call it in modern culture, "standard."

Indeed, unfortunately.

Curious here -- what do you mean by "integral?" Do you mean to say that it is necessary to the natural order? If so, why? The other words you chose, I'm 100% on board with. It occurs in nature (natural), and it occurs often enough that it's relatively common (normal, though not "the norm"), and the word "valid" is vague enough that it can apply here, I suppose.

Not really on the main subject, but how is homosexuality an "integral" part the animal kingdom. It is no way necessary to the survival of humans or any other animals that I'm aware of. And considering survival and reproduction are the basic goals of all animals, I don't see how "integral" homosexuality is.

It's integral because very few species have sex for pleasure. And yet homosexuality happens in more species than those. While I'll be the first to admit that the subject lacks adequate research, we definitely know that homosexuality happens in species that don't have sex for pleasure. If those species cannot afford to waste resources (time, energy and so on) in activities that do not further their own ends or the species's as a whole, then by logic homosexuality must fulfil some crucial function. Whether they are using sex as a communication tool, or as a way to establish necessary bonds, or for some hormonal/bacteriological/ethological end (or even for an end I cannot currently fathom), it is demonstrably integral. In short, if pleasure is not an end, then it must have another reason to exist.

 

[Tragedy's Rebellion]

Or, as we call it in modern culture, "standard."

Indeed, unfortunately.

Curious here -- what do you mean by "integral?" Do you mean to say that it is necessary to the natural order? If so, why? The other words you chose, I'm 100% on board with. It occurs in nature (natural), and it occurs often enough that it's relatively common (normal, though not "the norm"), and the word "valid" is vague enough that it can apply here, I suppose.

Not really on the main subject, but how is homosexuality an "integral" part the animal kingdom. It is no way necessary to the survival of humans or any other animals that I'm aware of. And considering survival and reproduction are the basic goals of all animals, I don't see how "integral" homosexuality is.

It's integral because very few species have sex for pleasure. And yet homosexuality happens in more species than those. While I'll be the first to admit that the subject lacks adequate research, we definitely know that homosexuality happens in species that don't have sex for pleasure. If those species cannot afford to waste resources (time, energy and so on) in activities that do not further their own ends or the species's as a whole, then by logic homosexuality must fulfil some crucial function. Whether they are using sex as a communication tool, or as a way to establish necessary bonds, or for some hormonal/bacteriological/ethological end (or even for an end I cannot currently fathom), it is demonstrably integral. In short, if pleasure is not an end, then it must have another reason to exist.

Actually, animals DO feel pleasure when they have sex, it's purely myth that they don't. The myth comes from the fact that they don't seek out sex when they don't want to reproduce, unlike dolphins (one example out of several) who even practice safe and non-reproductive sex. Also this lecture tries to explain the positive benefits of homosexuality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjd7hMhoeAM , it's certainly interesting and worth a look.

 

[Darken12]

Actually, animals DO feel pleasure when they have sex, it's purely myth that they don't. The myth comes from the fact that they don't seek out sex when they don't want to reproduce, unlike dolphins (one example out of several) who even practice safe and non-reproductive sex. Also this lecture tries to explain the positive benefits of homosexuality - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pjd7hMhoeAM , it's certainly interesting and worth a look.

Yes, they do. Nobody argued that. However, not all animals have sex for pleasure (at least, that's what I was taught some years ago. Things might have changed since then, I suppose), and a lot of animals who don't have sex for pleasure still have homosexual sex.

That talk was interesting, very informative. He actually pulled a bait and switch on me at the end, when he answered the homophobia question beginning with "in liberal societies..." and then paused. I expected him to say "liberal societies = better!" but he ended up with "liberal societies = worse!" which I found utterly hilarious. Though I'm somewhat pleased that the conservative right-wing has someone pro-LGBT+, I guess.

 

[chikusho]

OP, No.
/Thread

as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait

Testosterone increases aggressive behavior. Testicles produce higher levels of testosterone than ovaries.
Aggressiveness = Male biological trait.

 

[fulano]

There's a sexuality tendency spectrum with 100% heterosexual on one end and 100% homosexual on the other, most likely. Where individuals end up getting placed at depends on their natural biological inclination and the effects of the society they happen to exist in. I really don't think it is more complicated than this.

 

[Darken12]

as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait

Testosterone increases aggressive behavior. Testicles produce higher levels of testosterone than ovaries.
Aggressiveness = Male biological trait.

Nope [http://www.mediadesk.uzh.ch/articles/2009/testosteron-macht-nicht-streitlustig_en.html]. Nope [http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/267/1448/1089.short]. Nope [http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/168/2/217.short]. Nope [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2006.01440.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000334727090062X]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938471901673]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347273800399]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X99915143]. Nope [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2000.00555.x/abstract]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938479903858]. Nope [http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/6/2/174.short]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938489901224]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003193849290413V]. Nope [http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/36/1/35.short]. Nope [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009130220500049X].

Aggressive behaviour isn't as simple as pop culture would have you believe.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's integral because very few species have sex for pleasure. And yet homosexuality happens in more species than those. While I'll be the first to admit that the subject lacks adequate research, we definitely know that homosexuality happens in species that don't have sex for pleasure. If those species cannot afford to waste resources (time, energy and so on) in activities that do not further their own ends or the species's as a whole, then by logic homosexuality must fulfil some crucial function. Whether they are using sex as a communication tool, or as a way to establish necessary bonds, or for some hormonal/bacteriological/ethological end (or even for an end I cannot currently fathom), it is demonstrably integral. In short, if pleasure is not an end, then it must have another reason to exist.

This is a bit spotty, as I'm going off recollection. However, there have been multiple reports (I'm hesitant to say " studies," because I cannot speak to the veracity of reports I can't remember explicitly) that state there are biological benefits to the so-called "gay gene" in other species. It also remains possible that it's a byproduct, much as some "disorders" are tied to beneficial effects.

Now, the actual cause of homosexuality in humans (and in fact, the expression in other animals) isn't completely understood, but there also lies within it the possibility that homosexuality is a developmental flaw, as homosexuality can at least be casually linked to hormonal shifts during development. Quite frankly, reproductive biology is a bit of a mess. Miscarriage occurs in like a quarter of pregnancies, and that's nature's way of saying "whoops, we done fucked up." Yeah, there are other reasons, but genetic/developmental is a primary cause. And that's just the defects the body decides are really serious. Think about all those that are born with them.

I trod very carefully when I say this for many reasons. One of which is the fact that I'm not only bisexual but transsexual, and this sort of logic is often used to demean people just like me. but it is possible that it's just a (relatively common) screwup, biologically speaking. Certainly doesn't justify hate and revulsion, but it is what it is.


There remain other possibilities, too, but this is long enough to begin with.

 

[Something Amyss]

Testosterone increases aggressive behavior. Testicles produce higher levels of testosterone than ovaries.
Aggressiveness = Male biological trait.

Actually, not only is there no truth to that, low testosterone might actually make folks more aggressive.

Science. It works.

 

[Darken12]

This is a bit spotty, as I'm going off recollection. However, there have been multiple reports (I'm hesitant to say " studies," because I cannot speak to the veracity of reports I can't remember explicitly) that state there are biological benefits to the so-called "gay gene" in other species. It also remains possible that it's a byproduct, much as some "disorders" are tied to beneficial effects.

Now, the actual cause of homosexuality in humans (and in fact, the expression in other animals) isn't completely understood, but there also lies within it the possibility that homosexuality is a developmental flaw, as homosexuality can at least be casually linked to hormonal shifts during development. Quite frankly, reproductive biology is a bit of a mess. Miscarriage occurs in like a quarter of pregnancies, and that's nature's way of saying "whoops, we done fucked up." Yeah, there are other reasons, but genetic/developmental is a primary cause. And that's just the defects the body decides are really serious. Think about all those that are born with them.

I trod very carefully when I say this for many reasons. One of which is the fact that I'm not only bisexual but transsexual, and this sort of logic is often used to demean people just like me. but it is possible that it's just a (relatively common) screwup, biologically speaking. Certainly doesn't justify hate and revulsion, but it is what it is.


There remain other possibilities, too, but this is long enough to begin with.

Ah, I see the point you're making. Well, the best defence against that kind of argument is to go by the "is it a problem?" reasoning that the medical community follows when it encounters any genetic divergence. You could argue that things like skin colour, facial characteristics, hair colour and so on, are also all genetic mishaps. And yet nobody would call for a purge of people with blond hair or aquiline noses. Even if something IS the result of genetic variance, it doesn't automatically mean it's nature being its usual derpy self and done fucking up. Whether a genetic trait is considered acceptable or not depends on whether it's a problem. Does it inherently limit someone's life quality in some way? And here, inherently is the key word (that is, without taking in consideration societal "punishments" for exhibiting this or that genetic trait). If the trait does not inherently limit someone's life quality, it should be perfectly acceptable. And even if it does, the degree should be determined, as there are plenty of so-called "birth defects" that might diminish someone's life quality and are still not sufficient cause for discrimination or oppression.

 

[NoeL]

As far as being something that's discussed in terms of psychology, I'd say yes it's a fairly recent (i.e. within the last 100 years) invention. Back in the day I don't think "homosexuality" was a thing - they'd just say Jean Luc prefers 'the company of men'. Being gay wasn't seen in terms of having a "sexual orientation", it was just 'this guy likes to have sex with other guys'. It was a sexually immoral act to be abstained from - like eating carbs on a diet - rather than this notion that the romantic love most men would feel exclusively for women was instead felt exclusively for other men. Sadly, all too many people still have this backwards view of homosexuality, as if it's some kind of addiction or compulsion that can be overcome with willpower.

This is a bit spotty, as I'm going off recollection. However, there have been multiple reports (I'm hesitant to say " studies," because I cannot speak to the veracity of reports I can't remember explicitly) that state there are biological benefits to the so-called "gay gene" in other species. It also remains possible that it's a byproduct, much as some "disorders" are tied to beneficial effects.

From what I recall, women with gay brothers tend to have more children than average (not sure if the reverse is true), so it's quite possible the genes that might lead to homosexuality in men also lead to an increased sexual/child-rearing desire in women - explaining why the genes haven't been phased out through natural selection.

 

[xorinite]

as if aggressiveness was a male biological trait and not part of the social gender construct.

Several species demonstrate sexual dimorphism regarding aggression. Some with males being more aggressive, others with females. So it could be the case that aggressiveness is a male (h. sapiens) trait, however it would need to be demonstrated first.

There is good evidence that males of almost all species are more competitive for reproductive attention than females, even being noted by Darwin in the decent of man. Males of different species exhibiting a greater tendancy to pursue sexual partners than the females (interesting exceptions include sea horses.) Some people may suggest that this would naturally indicate that males would be more aggressive, I don't think this is a valid connection to draw despite how it may seem intuitive.

OT:

Sexual orientation isn't an invention it is a development, given that we see different sexual orientations in muliple species I tend to believe their origins preceed the existence of our species at the very least.

As for your hypothesis... Well, first a hypothesis has to be testable, you need to be able to say what you would expect to find it is was incorrect, and what method can be used to determine this. So I don't think it actually qualifies as one.

As an idea I don't think it makes much sense either.
Why would you need a mechanism to draw someone away from a relationship. why not simply turn off the original drive?
I also do not think there is good evidence to believe that a male hunter gatherer individual would be less caring towards the mother of his children than a female hunter gatherer of the same community.
Further given the average life spans 'enjoyed' by hunter gatherers, I doubt many females would have gotten to the age where reproduction wasn't viable anymore, especially when you consider the high chance of death from childbirth.

I also find the explaination of these traits being selected for due to their being beneficial to social cohesiveness far more compelling (even more so than the not being selected against idea)
I think I can even come up with a prediction to fit; I would predict based upon that concept that the more social a species is the greater proportion of homosexual and bisexual orientations will be found. With asocial species being the most hetrosexual. I think that is a falsifiable prediction.

I think your first step should be looking into how to form a hypothesis, and then checking out the various published papers regarding the origins of sexuality.

You might also enjoy this


edit subsitution: females to sexual partners for greater clarity.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Reading over this thread, I can't help but realize that LGBT should be less interested in finding more categories and adding more letters, but rather fight to reinforce the fact that sexuality is a scale and that labels don't help much. Maybe they're already doing that, I don't know. I just imagine that it would be liberating for everyone to come to terms with the idea that they have at least a minimum level of attraction to many types of people and that "roles" are bullshit forms of living delusion. I can dream, I guess. I apologize to any offended LGBT, and I'm practically a part of it.

Quite often, my wife and I will be watching a movie and I'll say "that's an attractive guy right there". Her immediate response is that she won't be surprised when I come out and tell her that I'm gay (I'm not). I explain that I don't have to be gay to recognize attractiveness in males and that I've liberated myself from the straight-gay dichotomy and draw the line at sexual behavior, to no avail. One battle at a time, I guess.