Musings on Homosexuality

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Matthew Green
Devotee
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm

Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Matthew Green »

I've always been intrigued by homosexuality- not in a bicurious kind of way, more of a psychosocial interest. What do people think of the following musings? (No bigotry intended here, my terminology may be clumsy though)

-How much is homosexuality to do with genetics, how much is it to do with early childhood experiences, how much is it to do with society?
-Are some people gay genetically (excuse the crudity of the phrasing) and some gay psychosocially? Or is the reasoning always the same?
-Purely my own observations, but there always seems to be a high correlation between sexual abuse as a child and homosexuality. Whats that about?
-How does homosexuality fit in with Darwinian theory? Surely it doesnt make evolutionary sense to be gay?
-Why do some people take such offence to other people being gay? Is it a reflection of their own issues?
-Have sexual boundaries become more relaxed in the last 50 years? There seems to be a higher incidence of 'straight' people having casual homosexual experiences whilst not considering themselves gay or bi.
-Is everyone a little bit gay somewhere deep down?
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Matthew Green wrote:I've always been intrigued by homosexuality- not in a bicurious kind of way, more of a psychosocial interest. What do people think of the following musings? (No bigotry intended here, my terminology may be clumsy though)

-How much is homosexuality to do with genetics, how much is it to do with early childhood experiences, how much is it to do with society?
-Are some people gay genetically (excuse the crudity of the phrasing) and some gay psychosocially? Or is the reasoning always the same?
-Purely my own observations, but there always seems to be a high correlation between sexual abuse as a child and homosexuality. Whats that about?
-How does homosexuality fit in with Darwinian theory? Surely it doesnt make evolutionary sense to be gay?
-Why do some people take such offence to other people being gay? Is it a reflection of their own issues?
-Have sexual boundaries become more relaxed in the last 50 years? There seems to be a higher incidence of 'straight' people having casual homosexual experiences whilst not considering themselves gay or bi.
-Is everyone a little bit gay somewhere deep down?
To take on your evolutionary point, it's a little simplistic to say it doesn't make sense. One could equally ask why women don't drop dead during the menopause, since they're even less useful for reproduction. In fact humans are pack animals and the dynamic is more complex. For example, it might be useful to keep around some non-breeding individuals to help with other tasks, or just to prevent the birth rate getting out of control. And that's assuming there's any genetic component at all, which I don't know.

Btw if this thread ends without anyone getting offended I'll be amazed.
User avatar
Ben Hunter
Kiloposter
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: S Yorks

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ben Hunter »

Matthew Green wrote:I've always been intrigued by homosexuality- not in a bicurious kind of way
A likely story.
Matthew Green wrote:-How does homosexuality fit in with Darwinian theory? Surely it doesnt make evolutionary sense to be gay?
In humans at least, you get lots of gay people breeding. All those gay Republicans who don't admit being gay, for example. Besides that, there's evidence that homosexuality can occur as a result of things happening during the embryonic stage of reproduction, so there isn't a genetic factor there.
Matthew Green wrote:-Why do some people take such offence to other people being gay? Is it a reflection of their own issues?
I have no idea. Maybe some people find it naturally disgusting and from there they extrapolate their feelings of disgust to believing that homosexuality is morally wrong.
Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ryan Taylor »

Matthew Green wrote: -Why do some people take such offence to other people being gay? Is it a reflection of their own issues?
Probably.
Last edited by Ryan Taylor on Fri Oct 26, 2012 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ralph Gillions »

I don't think there are 3 neat little boxes labelled "straight", "bisexual" and "gay".
I think of it as a spectrum, on which we find ourselves in a different place, at different times of our life.
I don't think we are fixed in any one spot.
I feel strongly about the spectrum.

I don't know how widespread this may be (I have not done a survey), but I have known homophobic remarks come from the mouths of people who do it to deflect attention from their own gayness. Not nice. "If I protest loud and long, my own orientation may not be questioned" seems to be the theory.
Last edited by Ralph Gillions on Sun May 30, 2010 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David Roe »

No body's born homosexual, in spite of the current slant often given in the media. Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice. You choose who to have sex with, or dream about, or lech at, or do whatever it takes to become homosexual, and I dare say you may have from birth is a genetic tendancy to do it. But all homosexuals are made, not born. It's a choice.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

David Roe wrote:No body's born homosexual, in spite of the current slant often given in the media. Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice. You choose who to have sex with, or dream about, or lech at, or do whatever it takes to become homosexual, and I dare say you may have from birth is a genetic tendancy to do it. But all homosexuals are made, not born. It's a choice.
Citation needed.
David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David Roe »

Charlie Reams wrote:
David Roe wrote:No body's born homosexual, in spite of the current slant often given in the media. Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice. You choose who to have sex with, or dream about, or lech at, or do whatever it takes to become homosexual, and I dare say you may have from birth is a genetic tendancy to do it. But all homosexuals are made, not born. It's a choice.
Citation needed.
Why?
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

There are certainly all sorts of biological indicators for homosexuality. While I think it's true that one chooses who one sleeps with, it's far less true one chooses what floats your boat, especially as that's not necessarily the bit you share with people.

I think homosexual people generally don't do anything different between the sheets to heterosexual people. Indeed, straight people, having a wider variety of equipment, as it were, may be considered to have the edge on the variety of their activities.

I did read an incredibly interesting article while I was reading for my degree (and I can't be arsed to provide citations now, but if it kicks off I will :lol: ) that suggested a biological factor may be during gestation and maternal hormones (intra-uterine testosterone) received. It stated that it's rarer for the eldest son to be gay, but more common for a second or more junior sibling. This didn't seem to apply to lesbianism, IIRC. There are also endocrinological and physiological differences in some homosexual men too. Off the top of my head these were some structures in the hypothalamus and anterior hypothalamus. There is also an incredibly high concordance in MZ twins (>50%), less so in DZ twins (~25% ish), and very little in siblings (<5%). All figures are approximate.

There are certainly scales of homosexuality: the Kinsey scale and Klein scale are examples of quantifiability of this.

To my understanding a 'gay gene' remains elusive but it's certainly true that gay children are born, for the most part, to straight parents and the approximate percentage of gay humans is also reflected across the whole animal kingdom.

I think it does make evolutionary sense to be gay. Human beings are the only species without the usual constraints of population control of e.g. habitat, food resources (in this country), infertility, etc., but, especially in combination with the suggestion that the eldest male child is least likely to be homosexual, suggests that parents may invest the best of their genetics into ensuring their lineage. Interestingly, this is reflected in things like more money tends to be spent by parents on eldest children, especially sons, and time invested, etc. There certainly seem to be sociological and behavioural traits that would suggest maximum investment in the eldest child.

I don't think there's a direct link at all between homosexuality and abuse: certainly not a biological one anyway. I also don't think there's been a relaxing of sexual boundaries - there have been very famous gay men through history (Oscar Wilde, Leonardo, etc.) but maybe since the sexual revolution and the decriminalisation of homosexuality the stigma's been removed, allowing people to be open about their experiences.
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Ben Hunter
Kiloposter
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:54 pm
Location: S Yorks

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ben Hunter »

David Roe wrote:Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice.
So you don't fancy women naturally, you just choose to...?
David Roe wrote:It's a choice.
Image
They chose to be gay.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Charlie Reams wrote:Btw if this thread ends without anyone getting offended I'll be amazed.
Good call :roll: :lol:
Lowering the averages since 2009
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

Just on the evolutionary/genetic argument I think I have heard a [pseudo-] scientific argument that would sense to me at the time but one which I will fail to recount adequately here:

1. For a species to survive it must reproduce hence there exists on a genetic level a desire to reproduce;
1.1 Hence there is a gene that encourages us to produce.
2. For a species to actually prosper it needs to over-produce;
2.2 Hence there is a gene that makes one overly attracted to the opposite sex.
3. Males and females are different;
3.1 These hyper sexed genes do not program the recipient to find the opposite sex attractive but are either find males attractive or find females attractive;
3.2 There are at least two genes in this argument: hyper sexual attractiveness to men (HSAM)/hyper sexual attractiveness to women (HSAW);
3.3 A female could inherit the HSAW gene as easily as a male could inherit the HSAM gene.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

David O'Donnell wrote:Just on the evolutionary/genetic argument I think I have heard a [pseudo-] scientific argument that would sense to me at the time but one which I will fail to recount adequately here:

1. For a species to survive it must reproduce hence there exists on a genetic level a desire to reproduce;
1.1 Hence there is a gene that encourages us to produce.
2. For a species to actually prosper it needs to over-produce;
2.2 Hence there is a gene that makes one overly attracted to the opposite sex.
3. Males and females are different;
3.1 These hyper sexed genes do not program the recipient to find the opposite sex attractive but are either find males attractive or find females attractive;
3.2 There are at least two genes in this argument: hyper sexual attractiveness to men (HSAM)/hyper sexual attractiveness to women (HSAW);
3.3 A female could inherit the HSAW gene as easily as a male could inherit the HSAM gene.
Like ants do, you mean? All the many species that produce sterile offspring purely for the benefit of the community? Sorry, never heard of a HSAM gene. Neither's Google, come to that...
Lowering the averages since 2009
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

Lesley Hines wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:Just on the evolutionary/genetic argument I think I have heard a [pseudo-] scientific argument that would sense to me at the time but one which I will fail to recount adequately here:

1. For a species to survive it must reproduce hence there exists on a genetic level a desire to reproduce;
1.1 Hence there is a gene that encourages us to produce.
2. For a species to actually prosper it needs to over-produce;
2.2 Hence there is a gene that makes one overly attracted to the opposite sex.
3. Males and females are different;
3.1 These hyper sexed genes do not program the recipient to find the opposite sex attractive but are either find males attractive or find females attractive;
3.2 There are at least two genes in this argument: hyper sexual attractiveness to men (HSAM)/hyper sexual attractiveness to women (HSAW);
3.3 A female could inherit the HSAW gene as easily as a male could inherit the HSAM gene.
Like ants do, you mean? All the many species that produce sterile offspring purely for the benefit of the community? Sorry, never heard of a HSAM gene. Neither's Google, come to that...
I made it up, thought that was obvious. I don't think the comparison with ants works since I am not sure but I think the receptors that determine whether they find another ant attractive are perhaps not as nuanced as our own.
David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 390
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David Roe »

You're missing the point, Ben. It's not who you fancy that necessarily determines your sexuality. It's your choice whether to follow that fancy that determines it.

For example, take the following forms of sexual activity:

Adultery
Bestiality
Celibacy
Heterosexuality
Homosexuality
Monogomy
Paedophilia
Rape

Of those eight, which ones are determined from birth, and which ones are only true as a result of an individual's choice whether to follow his/her inclinations? And if some are determined from birth and others not, how does the logic work?
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

David Roe wrote:You're missing the point, Ben. It's not who you fancy that necessarily determines your sexuality. It's your choice whether to follow that fancy that determines it.

For example, take the following forms of sexual activity:

Adultery
Bestiality
Celibacy
Heterosexuality
Homosexuality
Monogomy
Paedophilia
Rape

Of those eight, which ones are determined from birth, and which ones are only true as a result of an individual's choice whether to follow his/her inclinations? And if some are determined from birth and others not, how does the logic work?
I disagree. I think it's who you fancy, and from that some are constrained within sociological choices.

There was a series call 'Am I normal?', during which a paedophile was interviewed. He was advocating (and I apologise, again I very strongly disagree with the premise of this) that paedophiles should be allowed to practise non-penetrative relationships with acquiescent children. He's still a paedophile. My psychiatrist aunt disagrees with castration, as the problem is not in a paedophile's gonads, and I think she's right.

During criminalisation there were enough latent homosexuals finding outlets in dodgy backstreet (if you'll excuse the pun :P ) scenarios. Rape is an act of violence and control, it has nothing to do with sex. Adultery is merely moving outside the legal obligations of a contractual agreement and has nothing to do with sexuality (usually), and is a basis of the termination of that legal contract. There are enough priests who have taken vows of celibacy that choose to break them with consenting adults, so again this is irrespective of sexuality. I happen to think monogamy is a biological necessity (that has been extended into a lifelong sociological contract) while offspring are young, as two committed parents are necessary to ensure the success of the offspring: human children are born at a more vulnerable stage of their development than any other mammal, marsupials not withstanding.

Sex is in the head, not in the bedroom.

Edit: bestiality's not an area I know anything at all about, although whilst I was working as field engineer I was asked not to return to a GP's practice when the practice manager realised I'd seen his internet history. Animalmagic, goat.jpg... Bad lad! :lol:
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

David O'Donnell wrote:I made it up, thought that was obvious. I don't think the comparison with ants works since I am not sure but I think the receptors that determine whether they find another ant attractive are perhaps not as nuanced as our own.
Yes. Everyone knows Dec's the fit (and available) one.
Lowering the averages since 2009
Chris Corby
Devotee
Posts: 593
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:54 pm
Location: Farnborough, Hampshire

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Chris Corby »

David Roe wrote:No body's born homosexual, in spite of the current slant often given in the media. Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice. You choose who to have sex with, or dream about, or lech at, or do whatever it takes to become homosexual, and I dare say you may have from birth is a genetic tendancy to do it. But all homosexuals are made, not born. It's a choice.
On another post David, I said you were clever. So why post this rubbish?

As human beings, we are nothing more than computers, programmed from birth. Not everything is active at birth so a lot kicks in later on (whether, as a man for example, you are going to have a hairy chest with hair-free legs or vice-versa). So it is with who you fancy. You are stuck with it. Some gays fully accept it and sing it from the rooftops, others like David Laws, keep it from even their parents.

How can you say it is a "choice" when over the years, thousands of men have taken their own lives because they are homosexual and cannot live with the "shame" of it? Bloody hell, this is supposed to be 2010 not 1910.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Gavin Chipper »

David Roe wrote:You're missing the point, Ben. It's not who you fancy that necessarily determines your sexuality. It's your choice whether to follow that fancy that determines it.

For example, take the following forms of sexual activity:

Adultery
Bestiality
Celibacy
Heterosexuality
Homosexuality
Monogomy
Paedophilia
Rape

Of those eight, which ones are determined from birth, and which ones are only true as a result of an individual's choice whether to follow his/her inclinations? And if some are determined from birth and others not, how does the logic work?
You need to be clear about your terms if you're going to state that homosexuality is a choice. I'm guessing that you are purely talking about homosexual acts rather than homosexual feelings, but why not be explicit? I don't think people are doubting that having sex is a choice.

On a separate note - I've often wondered how much the "taker" in anal sex gets out of it. I don't know if anal sex has in any way been "built in" by evolution but if not then basically it's just a way for people to find the closest thing to sex. For the giver, he's basically doing the same as someone in heterosexual sex. But I'm not sure it should be any nicer for a homosexual man to have something up his arse than for a heterosexual man.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

I don't think David is suggesting that some are choice some are socially learned, in fact he's suggesting that given the variety of sexual outlets the answer is not clear cut: it could be either, it could be both: to forego this circumscription would be not to understand sexuality at all.

Maybe I am missing something?

(Oh yes, it's sex of any kind: I have tendinitis in the right hand)
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Gavin Chipper wrote:But I'm not sure it should be any nicer for a homosexual man to have something up his arse than for a heterosexual man.
Then spare a thought for laydees the next time you hear some drunken wanker loudly shouting "no harm done, eh lads?!", or indeed:
Why is anal sex the best?
It's warmer, it's tighter, and it's more degrading the woman.
I never said it was funny.

As it happens the perineum is very popular area of stimulation (for both sexes), so possibly (and I stress I don't know) it's not without its merits for participants.
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Andy Wilson
Kiloposter
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Andy Wilson »

Gavin Chipper wrote: On a separate note - I've often wondered how much the "taker" in anal sex gets out of it.
I find it varies from 50-100 quid depending on who's working.
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

Lesley Hines wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:I made it up, thought that was obvious. I don't think the comparison with ants works since I am not sure but I think the receptors that determine whether they find another ant attractive are perhaps not as nuanced as our own.
Yes. Everyone knows Dec's the fit (and available) one.
Yuk yuk, that's me dirty laughing not being physically disgusted.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Andy Wilson wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: On a separate note - I've often wondered how much the "taker" in anal sex gets out of it.
I find it varies from 50-100 quid depending on who's working.
TMI :lol: You obviously live in a posh area...
Lowering the averages since 2009
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

Lesley Hines wrote:
Andy Wilson wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: On a separate note - I've often wondered how much the "taker" in anal sex gets out of it.
I find it varies from 50-100 quid depending on who's working.
TMI :lol: You obviously live in a posh area...
...and I obviously need to move closer to you.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

David O'Donnell wrote:...and I obviously need to move closer to you.
Straight up the A40, baby ;)
Lowering the averages since 2009
David O'Donnell
Series 58 Champion
Posts: 2010
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:27 pm
Location: Cardiff

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by David O'Donnell »

Lesley Hines wrote:
David O'Donnell wrote:...and I obviously need to move closer to you.
Straight up the A40, baby ;)
Well if that's what you kids are calling it, nice to be apprised of the lingo.
User avatar
Andy Wilson
Kiloposter
Posts: 1181
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Andy Wilson »

ha!
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by John Bosley »

a couple of brief points on this subject -

1)The spectrum of sexuality makes most sense to me; with some of us lying near the middle and able to turn one way or the other and others at one of the far ends who are definitely this or that.

2) It is not just homo sapiens who are homosexual. (different 'homo' of cause). Other species have this.

3) I would say that 'choice' is one thing we do not have.
User avatar
Matthew Green
Devotee
Posts: 716
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Matthew Green »

Wow, some interesting posts. I agree that there will be people who will take offence to comments in this thread but thats only because their such nancy boys.
Charlie Reams wrote: For example, it might be useful to keep around some non-breeding individuals to help with other tasks, or just to prevent the birth rate getting out of control.
I see your point here but then why would gay people have a sex drive? Surely the sex drive serves the same purpose as appetite and the pain response in that it reminds us to keep ourselves alive as a species. So why have a sex drive to the same sex, seems like a waste of energy? Surely this is a misdirected sex drive for whatever reason. I have heard about a study where baby geese were exposed to ping pong balls at a young age instead of their mother. As adults they would try to mate with ping pong balls at every opportunity.
If I suddenly have a squirming baby on my lap it probably means that I should start paying it some attention and stop wasting my time messing around on a Countdown forum
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by John Bosley »

Sex drive does not have to have a purpose.
Humans (and I guess other species) who are infertile (sterilised/vasectomised/etc) may also have the 'sex drive'. And what about the use of condoms and other means of preventing pregnancy?

I guess the 'drive' is in your head - your subconscious.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Chris Corby wrote:
David Roe wrote:No body's born homosexual, in spite of the current slant often given in the media. Like all forms of sexuality, homosexuality is a choice. You choose who to have sex with, or dream about, or lech at, or do whatever it takes to become homosexual, and I dare say you may have from birth is a genetic tendancy to do it. But all homosexuals are made, not born. It's a choice.
On another post David, I said you were clever. So why post this rubbish?
I lolled at the time, I assumed you were being sarcastic.
Matthew Green wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: For example, it might be useful to keep around some non-breeding individuals to help with other tasks, or just to prevent the birth rate getting out of control.
I see your point here but then why would gay people have a sex drive? Surely the sex drive serves the same purpose as appetite and the pain response in that it reminds us to keep ourselves alive as a species. So why have a sex drive to the same sex, seems like a waste of energy? Surely this is a misdirected sex drive for whatever reason. I have heard about a study where baby geese were exposed to ping pong balls at a young age instead of their mother. As adults they would try to mate with ping pong balls at every opportunity.
Yeah I dunno about that, but once such a thing comes to exist, it's not necessarily anti-evolutionary to maintain it.
User avatar
Jon Corby
Moral Hero
Posts: 8018
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:36 am

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Jon Corby »

Andy Wilson wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote: On a separate note - I've often wondered how much the "taker" in anal sex gets out of it.
I find it varies from 50-100 quid depending on who's working.
PMSL
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ian Volante »

This thread has been remarkably sensible so far.

As far as sexuality goes, as has been said before, one chooses to stick one's knob in something/someone, one doesn't choose what makes one's knob stick-innable. Although tastes/behaviours can of course be learnt.

As for the pleasures of uphill gardening, I'm led to believe that internal stimulation of the prostate is good for the man. Not so sure for the woman though.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Ian Volante wrote: Not so sure for the woman though.
I have known plenty of women who found it intensely pleasurable, and I don't know why it's so mysterious. Why does having a penis stuck in any part of you feel good? Just friction and nerves, innit.
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ian Volante »

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote: Not so sure for the woman though.
I have known plenty of women who found it intensely pleasurable, and I don't know why it's so mysterious. Why does having a penis stuck in any part of you feel good? Just friction and nerves, innit.
I was more referring to the lack of prostate...Although I've never shagged a Cambridge "woman" up the arse, so am lacking evidence either way, as it were :)
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Ian Volante wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote: Not so sure for the woman though.
I have known plenty of women who found it intensely pleasurable, and I don't know why it's so mysterious. Why does having a penis stuck in any part of you feel good? Just friction and nerves, innit.
I was more referring to the lack of prostate...Although I've never shagged a Cambridge "woman" up the arse, so am lacking evidence either way, as it were :)
Do women have a prostate in their vagina?
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ian Volante »

Charlie Reams wrote:
Ian Volante wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote: I have known plenty of women who found it intensely pleasurable, and I don't know why it's so mysterious. Why does having a penis stuck in any part of you feel good? Just friction and nerves, innit.
I was more referring to the lack of prostate...Although I've never shagged a Cambridge "woman" up the arse, so am lacking evidence either way, as it were :)
Do women have a prostate in their vagina?
Philosophy isn't what it used to be :shock:
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Charlie Reams wrote:Do women have a prostate in their vagina?
They've got a homologous body called a Skene's gland
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3956
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ian Volante »

Lesley Hines wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Do women have a prostate in their vagina?
They've got a homologous body called a Skene's gland
Ah, rumoured source of the oft-denied female ejaculation.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

I've been thinking about some of these posts :o I won't do it again...

Sex drive is determined by many hormones, some of which, particularly testosterone, are essential for survival, fight-or-flight mechanisms etc., as well as being used in sexual activity. Therefore it's no great surprise homosexual people (men and women, and it could be demonstrated that some gay women produce considerably more testosterone than their heterosexual counterparts) have a healthy sex drive. Also orgasms produce oxytocin, the love hormone, that's necessary for bonding and strengthening emotional relationships.

What I've found more intriguing is "mainly heterosexual" people participating in homosexual activities. Stephen Fry details in Moab is my washpot that his deflowering was done by a chap he is sure is married now, and homosexual activity is common in single-sex institutions like schools and prisons where residents have no access to the opposite sex. (Edit: it's my personal opinion that in prisons this is more to do with power and control, like rape is, than sex, though.) The Romans were very proud to participate in homosexual activities as it was symbolic of having a superior social status to someone - you never received from someone lower down the ladder, that sort of thing. However, media stereotyping and opinions that are still passed down to us now from our, even liberally-minded, parents that are throw-backs to to stigmas and social castigation may influence us to take a positive decision to participate in a homosexual relationship (if that's your bag), as it is a societal issue.

Even more confusing is why there's sexual reproduction at all. Biologically there's no need for it.
Last edited by Lesley Hines on Sun May 30, 2010 9:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lowering the averages since 2009
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Ian Volante wrote:
Lesley Hines wrote:
Charlie Reams wrote:Do women have a prostate in their vagina?
They've got a homologous body called a Skene's gland
Ah, rumoured source of the oft-denied female ejaculation.
As the only bird in this conversation atm, I can honestly say I've got no idea if they do or not. I'm usually too busy to notice :lol: ;)

Edit: Wikipedia says they do! Fair play. And it's called a prostate nowadays too. You live and learn 8-)
Lowering the averages since 2009
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Gavin Chipper »

Lesley Hines wrote:Even more confusing is why there's sexual reproduction at all. Biologically there's no need for it.
Must be God.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Lesley Hines wrote:Even more confusing is why there's sexual reproduction at all. Biologically there's no need for it.
Oh yeah, I meant to ask about this. What do you mean "no need"?
Martin Smith
Acolyte
Posts: 203
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:12 pm
Location: Eastbourne

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Martin Smith »

I can't believe people would 'choose' to be gay. For a start, their number of potential partners is about 1/19th as many as a straight person has. They're also set up for stigma, ridicule, family issues, blackmail, legal issues in many countries, inability to have children (other than a handful of adoptions) and so on. Whether it's genetically based or a result of other factors is a more complex question though.

The David Laws situation is quite sad, as he's worked ever so hard to create this big political opportunity for his party but lost it within weeks. As a self-made millionaire the £40,000 was worth very little to him, but maybe he liked to be in a position of power in his relationship? Or was it simply about hiding the truth from his family?
User avatar
George F. Jenkins
Rookie
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by George F. Jenkins »

Martin Smith wrote:I can't believe people would 'choose' to be gay. For a start, their number of potential partners is about 1/19th as many as a straight person has. They're also set up for stigma, ridicule, family issues, blackmail, legal issues in many countries, inability to have children (other than a handful of adoptions) and so on. Whether it's genetically based or a result of other factors is a more complex question though.

The David Laws situation is quite sad, as he's worked ever so hard to create this big political opportunity for his party but lost it within weeks. As a self-made millionaire the £40,000 was worth very little to him, but maybe he liked to be in a position of power in his relationship? Or was it simply about hiding the truth from his family?
The David Laws situation is not sad. He is only an incompetent fraudster who got caught. He has also got very powerful friends, which is the probable reason why there is no news of possible prosecution. I hope very much that I am wrong in that possibility.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by John Bosley »

Yes. The Laws situation is nothing to do with sexuality or privacy, but all to do with greed and stupidity and fraud.
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Gavin Chipper »

I don't think it's as simple as that. He claimed for rent just like other MPs - does it really make any difference to the taxpayer if the person he's paying the rent happens to be his gay lover?
User avatar
George F. Jenkins
Rookie
Posts: 74
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by George F. Jenkins »

Gavin Chipper wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that. He claimed for rent just like other MPs - does it really make any difference to the taxpayer if the person he's paying the rent happens to be his gay lover?
If he paid rent for an empty residence, it would be acceptable. But it was not empty, and they were living together. And if he was concerned about keeping secret his homosexual preferences, he had no need, as a multi-millionaire, to claim expenses to pay rent. But people like him would be unable to pass up the chance to make some easy money, it would be against their principles. Also Gavin, you don't seem to have much respect for taxpayers and what they should be responsible to pay out for. I presume that you are a taxpayer.
Ralph Gillions
Devotee
Posts: 557
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: South Yorkshire

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Ralph Gillions »

To return to the topic:
Matthew Green wrote:Is everyone a little bit gay somewhere deep down?
Yes. That may sound a sweeping response, but it fits with the "spectrum" theory which I like so much.
I believe some people barely shift their place on that spectrum.
I also believe that many others do move around. Some quite markedly.
Subject to certain conditions and circumstances, who knows....what surprising things may happen.
Do we need practical experience to be considered homosexual (by those who consider such things)?
I wonder what percentage of people have had a gay thought.
User avatar
Lesley Hines
Kiloposter
Posts: 1250
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 9:29 pm
Location: Worcester

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Lesley Hines »

Charlie Reams wrote:
Lesley Hines wrote:Even more confusing is why there's sexual reproduction at all. Biologically there's no need for it.
Oh yeah, I meant to ask about this. What do you mean "no need"?
Obviously sexual reproduction is a later development than asexual reproduction, but some of the costs involved to the species can be so great it's easy to ask how it evolved at all and then why the species stuck with it. It's certainly not as simple as the old 'greater genetic diversity and adaption to the environment' chestnut. Sexual reproduction comes with extensive extra costs - energy consumption finding a mate, physical closeness allowing pathogen and parasite transmission, predator susceptibility to start with. Meiosis is a much longer process than mitosis, before you even get to syngamy and karyogamy (gamete fusion and nucleic combination). Asexual reproduction can have several cycles before a single sexual cycle can take place. Meiosis is a haphazard process too so there's no guarantee of allelic fitness which can then be compounded in the mating process. There's also not an equal male / female genetic distribution - more of your genes are maternal (since the male contributes no cytoplasmic genetic material).

I'm not saying there's no place for sexual reproduction but there are more efficient ways to reproduce. If you think of it demographically, a population of 100 that has half asexual and half sexual reproducers (which are then split 50:50) would give the sexual population a 2:1 disadvantage.

While the benefits of sexual reproduction are apparent in a population the costs are still carried by the individual, the level at which the genetic distribution occurs.

Certainly many of the advantages for sexual reproduction are hypothesised, and there are intelligent criticisms for all of them. However, if nature says it works, who am I to argue? ;)
Lowering the averages since 2009
Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 13215
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Gavin Chipper »

George F. Jenkins wrote:If he paid rent for an empty residence, it would be acceptable.
What? Empty, or empty not including him?
But it was not empty, and they were living together.
But as far as I understand, it would be fine if he was living together with his best mate. I don't see one as robbing from the taxpayer any more than the other.
And if he was concerned about keeping secret his homosexual preferences, he had no need, as a multi-millionaire, to claim expenses to pay rent.
I don't know the exact details, but I guessed that if he didn't claim for rent people might start asking why.
But people like him would be unable to pass up the chance to make some easy money, it would be against their principles. Also Gavin, you don't seem to have much respect for taxpayers and what they should be responsible to pay out for. I presume that you are a taxpayer.
I am a taxpayer - it's hard to avoid paying taxes. This is nothing do do with having respect for taxpayers - I just think it's fairly arbitrary who someone can and can't pay rent to and claim for it.

But I'm not against you in your general principle that MPs, possibly including this guy, have been claiming too much in certain areas. I think most of the country are with you on that.
User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Rosemary Roberts »

People like him would be unable to pass up the chance to make some easy money
That is not a crime in itself - I much prefer to make money easily, the more, the merrier.

But MPs and other public figures, including people who work for bodies such as the NHS and the BBC (which has its own body of taxpayers) need to be aware that their pay is taxpayers' money. They need to realise that this means that it should not be wasted. And they need to remain aware of this throughout their term of office.

Being aware of this, people who are already millionaires need to ask themselves whether they should be claiming living expenses at all. Many MPs would have two homes anyway, there is no good reason for them to be publicly funded: the fact that the possibility exists does not mean that everybody should claim it.

Incidentally, I have always thought that this principle (i.e. public body pay = taxpayers' money) ought to mean that nobody in a publicly-owned enterprise should ever, under any circumstances, be paid a bonus. Bonuses should only come out of "spare money", and public services, by definition, have no spare money.

But we digress.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Rosemary Roberts wrote: Incidentally, I have always thought that this principle (i.e. public body pay = taxpayers' money) ought to mean that nobody in a publicly-owned enterprise should ever, under any circumstances, be paid a bonus. Bonuses should only come out of "spare money", and public services, by definition, have no spare money.
If the public sector pay less, the private sector would cream off all the best people and leave the state enterprises with the leftovers. Which of course some would argue is what's already happened.
Paul Howe
Kiloposter
Posts: 1070
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:25 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Paul Howe »

Lesley Hines wrote:
While the benefits of sexual reproduction are apparent in a population the costs are still carried by the individual, the level at which the genetic distribution occurs.
I think that's the key problem. Sexual reproduction at the group level confers some massive advantages, but you still need to explain how sex produces benefits at the individual level that outweigh the 50% reduction in an individual's fitness versus asexual reproduction.

The main explanations I've seen are:
- Sex allows deleterious mutations to be removed in a single generation at a much greater rate than asexually. The exact benefit would depend on the rate at which negative mutations occur, which is difficult to measure experimentally (in fact, I believe it's a major research programme in evo biology to get a better handle on this mutation rate for various species).
- The greater variation coming from not being a clone (mutations excepted) would be useful in an environment which is rapidly changing and to which the parent is maladapted. While we can certainly imagine times at which rapid environmental change occurs, the environment would mostly NOT be changing at a rapid rate, so why does sex persist in these times? Mitosis is going on pretty everywhere else in the body, so it seems like it wouldn't be a difficult adaptation to go from sexual to asexual. One explanation is that complex species are locked in a constant evolutionary battle with parasites, and that the rapidly changing parasitic environment supplies the needed enviornmental change.
- The 2:1 reproductive advantage thing implies that sexual and asexual females produce at the same rate, i.e. the presence of the males has no effect on reproductive rate. In many species the males aren't that catastrophically useless and provide benefits that would reduce this ratio. Although its also true that sex persists in species where the males / females have little interaction apart from sex, so at least one other explanation must also apply.
Rosemary Roberts wrote: Incidentally, I have always thought that this principle (i.e. public body pay = taxpayers' money) ought to mean that nobody in a publicly-owned enterprise should ever, under any circumstances, be paid a bonus. Bonuses should only come out of "spare money", and public services, by definition, have no spare money.
This is a pretty bizarre argument. If paying bonuses to certain individuals motivates them to perform in a way that produces a better outcome, it would surely be in the public interest to do so. No enterprise of any sort of complexity will be able to exactly determine its costs in advance. You can budget for an expected amount of bonus payout, and then if (TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT PRODUCED WITH BONUSES LESS EXPECTED WAGE PAYOUTS WITH BONUSES) is greater than (TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT PRODUCED WITHOUT BONUSES LESS FIXED WAGE PAYOUTS) then you would be wasting taxpayer money not to pay the bonuses. Obviously you can still argue whether bonuses really do motivate these positive behaviours.

I feel a bit sorry for David Laws as I don't think he was motivated by greed and seems like a very capable man. I think the expenses scandal in general was a bit overblown. I found it a bit depressing to see the British public, which had mostly displayed a complete apathy to most political matters (which imo has created far larger problems for our democracy than the expenses scandal), unleash their fury over some fairly minor corruption (and not even the kind of corruption that buys influence!) that amounted to an absolute pittance of total public spending.

BTW in case you're wondering why the long post, it's a glorious Saturday and I'm stuck at my flat waiting for a plumber to arrive. :evil:
User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Rosemary Roberts »

Charlie Reams wrote:
Rosemary Roberts wrote: Incidentally, I have always thought that this principle (i.e. public body pay = taxpayers' money) ought to mean that nobody in a publicly-owned enterprise should ever, under any circumstances, be paid a bonus. Bonuses should only come out of "spare money", and public services, by definition, have no spare money.
If the public sector pay less, the private sector would cream off all the best people and leave the state enterprises with the leftovers. Which of course some would argue is what's already happened.
That is often said, but I think there is a good chance the state enterprises might be left with people who are more interested in the success of the enterprise than their own pocket. Public or private, the highly paid executives never seem to achieve very much besides a bloated middle management and endless reorganisations. When they fail, as they often do, they depart with a golden handshake to some other green fields. I would like to see a few examples of senior managers failing because they were not paid enough. Citation needed, Charlie.

While I'm not giving them bonuses I will also take away their PowerPoint installations. But that's just a personal prejudice.
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

Rosemary Roberts wrote:That is often said, but I think there is a good chance the state enterprises might be left with people who are more interested in the success of the enterprise than their own pocket.
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to draw here. It's not like the inefficiencies of the BBC are caused by people stealing the petty cash. If you're offered otherwise identical positions at the BBC or ITV but only ITV pay bonuses, what rational person would take the BBC job? Are you claiming that a person's approach to a given job depends on the source of the money they're paid? It just makes no sense.
Public or private, the highly paid executives never seem to achieve very much besides a bloated middle management and endless reorganisations. When they fail, as they often do, they depart with a golden handshake to some other green fields.
If this were really true, these cash-haemorrhaging companies with highly paid (but useless) management would be soon outcompeted by new companies which just didn't bother with management. Can you give any example where this has happened? All of us have experienced frustration with management but it's rather simplistic to imagine that life would be better without them.
I would like to see a few examples of senior managers failing because they were not paid enough. Citation needed, Charlie.
Attack of the killer strawman. You pay people more because they're good, not the other way round. I realise you're trying to mock my heinous preoccupation with sourcing facts, but you're not doing a very good job.
User avatar
Rosemary Roberts
Devotee
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Rosemary Roberts »

The distinction I am trying to draw is between people who chase jobs with interesting and challenging work that they feel capable of and those who chase only the numbers. There is the added factor that many "management" jobs are advertised in terms that are entirely meaningless, which means that only those skilled in management-speak can or will apply. For examples refer to Private Eye's Pseuds Corporate.
Charlie Reams wrote:Attack of the killer strawman. You pay people more because they're good, not the other way round. I realise you're trying to mock my heinous preoccupation with sourcing facts, but you're not doing a very good job.
I'm not, as a matter of fact, I entirely approve of it. It's only inconvenient when I make a sweeping statement and have no facts to back it up. Which does happen.

You don't pay people more because they're good, you pay them more either because you believe them to be good (which may be merely because they currently earn a high salary) or because you want your public to believe they will be good. Hence Jonathan Ross.

Seriously, I don't believe that lower pay expectations necessarily means lower skills or lower motivation. There are plenty of people around who are both competent and happy with what they are paid. There's no reason why some of those people shouldn't be perfectly capable of running the NHS. I don't believe it has ever been tried, because the people on boards and committees who decide pay rates are all in the phone number bracket themselves and equate their own pay with their own inflated sense of their ability and worth.
User avatar
John Bosley
Enthusiast
Posts: 380
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:52 pm
Location: Huddersfield

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by John Bosley »

I agree with much of what you say, Rosemary. Who exactly are 'the best people' that money attracts?
User avatar
Charlie Reams
Site Admin
Posts: 9494
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:33 pm
Location: Cambridge
Contact:

Re: Musings on Homosexuality

Post by Charlie Reams »

John Bosley wrote:I agree with much of what you say, Rosemary. Who exactly are 'the best people' that money attracts?
More money attracts more people, so you get more applicants and hence you pick the best of them. I know it's appealing to think that well-paid people are a bunch of useless toffs but fairly basic economics tells you that they can't all be.
Post Reply