Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2023, 04:45 PM
bu2
 
24,092 posts, read 14,875,404 times
Reputation: 12929

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.



Point being, we don’t know definitively what, if any, that (survival) value is; it’s an evolutionary paradox as it does not contribute to an animal’s survival or reproductive ‘fitness’. That, however, shouldn’t matter in terms of the thread; we can be turned-off by homosexuality or have an inability to relate but simultaneously accept it and respect others’ rights relative to such.
Obvious you don't watch much TV anymore. There's a fair amount of gay scenes on TV now. Mini-series like Orphan Black had it. There was a network series on a Broadway show (Smash?). Lots of kissing in commercials. I don't watch too much TV, but I have run across it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2023, 04:48 PM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,662 posts, read 3,863,988 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
I don’t know if I’d call it a ‘belief’, but I tend to agree since physical sexual attraction, in and of itself, is biologically-based i.e. testosterone and estrogen drive lust; dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine create attraction. While it certainly extends far beyond the physical as to the type of women (or men) one is attracted to, you’re either into folks of the same gender, as a whole, or you’re not; one can’t be ‘kind of gay’ or ‘kind of straight’, at least if they’re being real with themselves and others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
But I would argue that someone who will come along and declare that bisexuals don't really exist, is more involved in trying to control or not accept the sexuality and identity of other people, than not. I have no idea what's up with that, either.
This is what I meant by those who argue/take personal offense at opinion (or assume); then, they exaggerate or apply it in such a way it was never intended (in order to control the narrative). In other words, if you’re referring to my post (above), it doesn’t affect you (or anyone who considers themselves to be bisexual) that I think one is gay (or not); from my perspective, there is no in-between. As a heterosexual man, I don’t understand the ambivalence; obviously, I know there are folks who are (or consider themselves to be) bisexual. Have at it. I don’t mind gay characters in movies or TV shows, either, lol.

Again, relative to psychology and the thread, what’s important is how they feel about their homosexuality/bisexuality (as opposed to how others feel) in the same way their opinion doesn’t matter relative to my heterosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Oh, what I describe HAS been put out there by many evolutionary biologists. I didn't come up with it.
I didn’t come up with the Darwinian paradox, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2023, 08:33 PM
 
Location: King County, WA
15,827 posts, read 6,536,770 times
Reputation: 13325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
If you Google the above term you'll come up with plenty of sources. This is not some totally unexplainable mystery. Though I agree, it doesn't NEED an explanation.
I'd argue that it certainly does need an explanation. A behavior that is so prevalent in nature requires an evolutionary basis, and that rational explanation can work to inoculate against cultural intolerance. It also doesn't need to be just one root cause; there can be multiple factors working toward its survival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 03:55 AM
 
737 posts, read 409,699 times
Reputation: 1847
Default wrong

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.



Point being, we don’t know definitively what, if any, that (survival) value is; it’s an evolutionary paradox as it does not contribute to an animal’s survival or reproductive ‘fitness’. That, however, shouldn’t matter in terms of the thread; we can be turned-off by homosexuality or have an inability to relate but simultaneously accept it and respect others’ rights relative to such.
Thats a clown question bro. You took my statement and created alot of assumptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
20,382 posts, read 14,651,390 times
Reputation: 39467
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
This is what I meant by those who argue/take personal offense at opinion (or assume); then, they exaggerate or apply it in such a way it was never intended (in order to control the narrative). In other words, if you’re referring to my post (above), it doesn’t affect you (or anyone who considers themselves to be bisexual) that I think one is gay (or not); from my perspective, there is no in-between. As a heterosexual man, I don’t understand the ambivalence; obviously, I know there are folks who are (or consider themselves to be) bisexual. Have at it. I don’t mind gay characters in movies or TV shows, either, lol.

Again, relative to psychology and the thread, what’s important is how they feel about their homosexuality/bisexuality (as opposed to how others feel) in the same way their opinion doesn’t matter relative to my heterosexuality.



I didn’t come up with the Darwinian paradox, either.
And with the back-pedaling... You very often come to a thread and declare that people are all this or that, and sometimes posit that anyone who does not conform to your very strict and limited "people in neat little boxes" statement is delusional, lying to themselves or others, or mentally ill... Then when someone like me comes along and says that in fact I'm living proof of the possibility and existence of someone who does not fit your statement and who is quite mentally healthy thank you (trust me I know the difference between mental illness and mental health) - then you're like, "It's just my opinion, why are you mad." Like any disagreement is...what...someone being emotional?

Dude sometimes you're just wrong.

I am not mad, in either sense of the word, and you are welcome to live in a world of limited possibility, obviously, believe whatever you like, hold any opinions you wish. None of us needs anybody's permission for such things. But they sure as all hell don't shape reality for anyone but yourself, and those who disagree in a forum are probably going to speak up.

I think I just get annoyed with you throwing around snipes about people's mental health, particularly given the context of having lived with someone who has schizo-affective disorder (and come to think of it, several friends and family members who have mental illness that is severe enough to deeply impair their ability to live and function.) When you've witnessed this sort of thing first hand, felt the pain and sorrow of being unable to help a loved one who is suffering from something like that, you get a little bit less cavalier about calling people mentally ill just because they disagree with you on the internet. The basis for my own self-evaluation of my relative mental wellness, is in the fact that I am not in any distress, and I do very well in terms of meeting responsibilities and obligations - successful career, bills paid, take good care of self and others and my home and everything I need to, have fulfilling and happy relationships with other people. I've got some pretty decent data points here, and the people I've known whose mental health is definitely a problem, really struggle with all of that. Real, serious mental illness isn't something that a person easily lives with. And no, throwing that around doesn't make your posts more relevant to a psychology forum either.

I also am familiar with the term, "Darwinian Paradox." But I also know that there's been A LOT of study of evolutionary biology since Darwin, he did not have the final word on the subject. And the "Benevolent Uncle Theory" is a response from those studying the subject since then, to that concept in this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae View Post
I'd argue that it certainly does need an explanation. A behavior that is so prevalent in nature requires an evolutionary basis, and that rational explanation can work to inoculate against cultural intolerance. It also doesn't need to be just one root cause; there can be multiple factors working toward its survival.
I would argue that no one in society has the authority or right to go around policing other people's behavior based on whatever they think is adaptive to evolution. People should not require a rational explanation for the things that they do, because they don't need to be accountable to the likes of anybody, if they are harming no one. Especially in a world full of people who absolutely do tremendous harm to others and who seem to get away with it, as far as society is concerned.

I think that we raise a big fuss about a whole lot of the wrong things, way too often, and let far more serious and egregious abuses and harms get swept under the rug. And I couldn't care less if a person has a "rational" explanation about doing something seriously harmful to others or not...a rational explanation doesn't always make something OK. Nor does a lack of one, make it wrong. I mean, to give you an example, I've had men sit and explain to me why it's completely rational from an evolutionary psychology perspective for a 40 year old man to want to mate with a 14 year old girl. All talking about fertility and whatever. Sure as hell doesn't make it alright to me or anybody with half a brain.

Meanwhile a grown woman I know has decorated the dead husk of an old tree in her front yard with hand crafted "fairy houses"...for no reason other than it makes her happy. Is that especially "rational"? Serve some kind of evolutionary purpose? No, not really. Is that cause to take issue with it? I don't think so. We're not robots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
Obvious you don't watch much TV anymore. There's a fair amount of gay scenes on TV now. Mini-series like Orphan Black had it. There was a network series on a Broadway show (Smash?). Lots of kissing in commercials. I don't watch too much TV, but I have run across it.
This is true, there is a lot more deliberate representation on TV these days. Of course, one can find entire streaming channels devoted to classic TV, if one is bothered by reflection of social progress in contemporary media.

Personally though, I like it just fine. Husband and I are watching Season 2 of "Our Flag Means Death" which is all sorts of delightfully gay and neither one of us is uncomfortable. But we have spent a whole lot of time around a bunch of people that includes a big spectrum of different identities and orientations, so we're both quite desensitized to it all.

And that's kinda the thing... There have been behaviors in the past of our culture that were considered to be shocking (women in trousers!) and that at some point would draw great attention and judgment, but once enough people push for the freedom to do something that was never hurting anybody anyways, and then you get a few decades of normalizing it so people learn it's not a threat or a big deal... Eventually no one cares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 10:05 AM
 
Location: SF/Mill Valley
8,662 posts, read 3,863,988 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by H8t3rs View Post
Though I turn the channel when I see any gay scenes. Two men kissing does not work for me, and I don't need to see two women kiss either. I am not repulsed or angry, but in the comfort of my house, I turn the channel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy View Post
Unless the two of you are watching gay porn, why would you mention (a lack of) appeal or state it ‘does not work’ (for you)? There’s a huge difference between being personally turned-off by same-gender sex vs. the inability to accept homosexuality exists, particularly to the point you can’t (even) watch a gay couple in a (drama/comedy) TV show or movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by H8t3rs View Post
Thats a clown question bro. You took my statement and created alot of assumptions.
It’s a logical question i.e. why mention it ‘does not work’ for you relative to turning the channel? Same-gender sex doesn’t have to ‘work for you’ in order to accept it i.e. what’s the big deal about seeing gay characters in a TV show or movie?

Same-gender sex ‘doesn’t work’ for me either, ‘bro’; however, there’s a difference between that and intolerance (or even social intelligence), per the thread, no matter one’s sexual orientation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
I think I just get annoyed with you throwing around snipes about people's mental health, particularly given the context of having lived with someone who has schizo-affective disorder (and come to think of it, several friends and family members who have mental illness that is severe enough to deeply impair their ability to live and function.) When you've witnessed this sort of thing first hand, felt the pain and sorrow of being unable to help a loved one who is suffering from something like that, you get a little bit less cavalier about calling people mentally ill just because they disagree with you on the internet.
There is a huge difference between (striving for) optimal psychological health (per the forum) vs. mental/psychiatric illness, as you describe (and I’m sorry to hear of your experience with such). I’ve never once made a snipe about either; in fact, I’ve often commented on my compassion for folks who suffer from the latter, and I (financially and professionally) contribute a great deal to the mentally ill/homeless in my City.

As mentioned previously, however, mental illness is different than psychological health, particularly relative to homosexuality and acceptance of others. It’s not rocket science to know it’s a matter of self-esteem, security, confidence, tolerance, anger and so on when one can’t accept (or even cares about) another’s sexual orientation/opinion. Keep in mind we’re in a Psychology Forum (although it applies elsewhere as well); as such, what’s important is how you feel about you and your bisexuality, as opposed to getting annoyed by (your interpretation of) others.

Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 10-06-2023 at 10:52 AM.. Reason: added quote/response
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 11:32 AM
bu2
 
24,092 posts, read 14,875,404 times
Reputation: 12929
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic_Spork View Post
Oh, what I describe HAS been put out there by many evolutionary biologists. I didn't come up with it.

It's known as the "benevolent uncle theory."

That this may have evolved to provide additional providers and protectors for the offspring of related adults, therefore even though you are not passing on your own DNA directly by procreating, you're protecting DNA you have in common with your siblings' kids (as an example.)

If you Google the above term you'll come up with plenty of sources. This is not some totally unexplainable mystery. Though I agree, it doesn't NEED an explanation.

I have no idea why anyone is angry about anyone being turned off about anything or anyone, nor why anyone would have a problem with anyone else's expression of masculinity, femininity or anything else.

But I would argue that someone who will come along and declare that bisexuals don't really exist, is more involved in trying to control or not accept the sexuality and identity of other people, than not. I have no idea what's up with that, either.
I'll be honest. Benevolent uncle theory seems like one of the biggest scientific crocks I've ever heard.
As we have learned that genes get turned on or off by the environment, overcrowding would be a much more logical explanation. With more people and people living closer together, it could turn on or off relevant genes and so you get fewer people interested in reproducing. A crowded society with everyone reproducing could produce starvation. So there would be some evolutionary benefit for that. We know for certain that women with low body fat (ie a time of low food resources) have trouble getting pregnant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
20,382 posts, read 14,651,390 times
Reputation: 39467
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I'll be honest. Benevolent uncle theory seems like one of the biggest scientific crocks I've ever heard.
As we have learned that genes get turned on or off by the environment, overcrowding would be a much more logical explanation. With more people and people living closer together, it could turn on or off relevant genes and so you get fewer people interested in reproducing. A crowded society with everyone reproducing could produce starvation. So there would be some evolutionary benefit for that. We know for certain that women with low body fat (ie a time of low food resources) have trouble getting pregnant.
Well that's always been kinda the problem I have with evo-psych anyways though. Humans are a lot more complex than pretty much any other species, in terms of our motivations romantically/sexually and otherwise.

I've always thought that you can do as many t-shirt armpit "scientific" studies as you like, but the programming is more powerful than the wiring, so to speak. In other words, the influences that shape our thinking from early childhood through adolescence and beyond, are going to have more weight in what we do and don't do, in my opinion, than "species breeding strategy" whatever. How many times have we seen people make bad choices in mates as a fairly logical and almost predictable pattern based on family roles and dynamics they learned growing up? The evo-bio/evo-psych stuff might have some validity but with humans it is FAR from the whole picture. And a lot of us care about more than just "survival"...we want to thrive.

So yeah, in a small remote village you might see some benefit from the "benevolent uncles" (or aunties) who do not reproduce, helping to care for the brood birthed by their adult siblings or something. In a big city though, probably gay couples aren't always all that involved in the upbringing of their nieces, nephews, and whatnot. Though in reality, as I said, they DO contribute to the overall input of labor in society that benefits the interests of those who are raising kids (as in my example about taxes.) So while whatever theory one may need to try and cook up to reconcile gay penguins with Darwinian ideas might not apply in the much more complicated world of human beings... There's also more to human life than breeding more humans.

What's really had me shaking my head though? I am 44, so I was a teen of the 90s. Throughout my growing up I heard constantly the talk of how we've overpopulated the planet, the Earth cannot sustain our out of control numbers, there's world hunger and blah blah, abstinence only, just non stop "don't have sex!" talk. I feared pregnancy more than anything, more even than dying of AIDS because at least that would only be a direct consequence to me of my own actions, the thought of a helpless infant paying the price for my choices horrified me. I did not want to have kids, ever.

And when my sons were in school (yeah, obviously I did end up having a couple of kids anyways), just a handful of years ago, the sex ed classes were "abstinence only" too. Most young women I talk to who are part of my sons' social circles, do not want to have kids. Oddly though, the boys do.

So with all this incessant hammering into our heads about how reproduction is to be avoided at all costs, unless one attains full financial security and THE perfect marriage to the perfect partner... Now we are somehow shocked and upset that young people aren't coupling up and having kids? To say nothing of economic realities of being a young adult?

And then how in context of ALL THAT are we going to sit here talking about "Darwinian" blah blah when tons of perfectly "fit" and fertile young adults are wanting to completely opt out of having children? Man, I wish someone could go back in time with a copy of the film, "Idiocracy" and sit down with Mr. Charles Darwin and see what he thinks about that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2023, 02:51 PM
 
4,027 posts, read 3,305,056 times
Reputation: 6384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bu2 View Post
I'll be honest. Benevolent uncle theory seems like one of the biggest scientific crocks I've ever heard.
As we have learned that genes get turned on or off by the environment, overcrowding would be a much more logical explanation. With more people and people living closer together, it could turn on or off relevant genes and so you get fewer people interested in reproducing. A crowded society with everyone reproducing could produce starvation. So there would be some evolutionary benefit for that. We know for certain that women with low body fat (ie a time of low food resources) have trouble getting pregnant.

It turns out very few traits or illnesses are caused by one gene. Instead almost everything is caused by a bunch of different genes as well as an interaction with the environment. That also seems to be true for homosexuality.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/s...-gene-sex.html

In the areas where we seem to have an explanation for some specific type of homosexuality, genes are only a tangential explanation.

Twenty years ago Ray Blanchard and Anthony Bogaert proposed the Fraternal Birth Order effect. It turns out each older brother increases the odds a younger son will be gay by 33 percent. It is estimated that 15 to 30 of all male homosexuality can be explained by this effect. The problem was they initially had was identifying a specific mechanism to explain this effect. More recent research suggests that some women are progressively immunized by each male child they have by the NLGN4Y protein. This protein is involved In sinapse formation during in utero development. This seems like a much more developed explanation for this specific cause of homosexuality.The paper is pretty interesting to read if you're interested.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5777082/

Now does this explanation explain homosexuality in everyone? No, but it gives us a better idea of what future explanations of homosexuality are going to look like. There will likely be a protein, or a chemical process that interferes with fetal development at or before the 11th week of the pregnancy when the the brain of the fetus is getting sexually organized. I wouldn't be surprised if environmental effects had something to do with where someone falls on the Kinsey Scale or the likelihood of situational homosexuality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2023, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Texas Hill Country
23,652 posts, read 13,982,074 times
Reputation: 18856
Personally, as far as my responses?............................anything you want me to be. FOR EXAMPLE, there is BRIAR PATCH. Briar Patch is a tactical maneuver to illuminate or even shake a tail by going into an environment that will unnerve them.......such as a gay bar. Me, my emotions are under such control that I can be in there, even instantly activating my defensive cover story (someone hits on me and "you will have to ask my Domme that").

Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle View Post
Some of it is that men know how they look at women sexually and some feel threatened at the thought that a man might be looking at them in the same manner. Even though gay men are generally not going to be attracted to every straight man, they have types just like everyone else in the world.
Oh, I remember that! About gays in the military and men saying they feared being oogled in the shower by gays looking them over?

"Well, that's typical! Men thinking that they are God's Gift to Women and now thinking they are God's Gift to Gays, too!".

As to the question, well, to put it nicely, socialization tends to have women sharing more with each other so the repulsion is less.

Now, conceptually, theoretically? What happens sexually to one sex, women, is not too much different of whether it is done by the same or opposite...........but for men, who are the penetrators, I would theorize that the thought of them being penetrated would be quite upsetting indeed.

Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 10-11-2023 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Psychology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top