[Boerseun]

Haha - kinda like acting queer to pick up chicks! I actually know of quite a few guys who've successfully done it. Makes you wonder how many visibly homosexual (gestures, etc., the gay stereotype) actually are homosexuals?

[adjective]

Sorry to bump a month-old topic, but I couldn't help adding to this particular discussion.

Regarding the hypothalamus research: it's been vastly overinterpreted. It says that sexual orientation is in the brain, but not how it got there.

There was a study in 2004 that suggested a genetic link to homosexuality. The study suggests that the gene is on the X chromosome and that it correlated with higher numbers of offspring in women and homosexuality in men. Other researchers were unable to replicate the findings, though.

An interesting study released earlier this year, though, found that homosexual males respond to a testosterone derivative found in male sweat, as do women, and that heterosexual males respond to an estrogen derivative found in female urine. Homosexual women were included on the study but the results were "confused." I'm not aware of any efforts to reproduce the study.

Another theory I've run into deals with hormone levels in utero. Since the brain and sex organs develop at different times, the brain might be built with certain sexual orientation characteristics and a different overall sex makeup. I believe this is similar to the current theory on how transsexuals are born.

Personally, I don't think any of these theories hold much water since they don't explain bisexuality. Obviously, as some people have pointed out in this discussion earlier, there is a nature vs. nurture factor that needs to be taken into account. There's far too much variance seen in sexual orientation to be accounted for by the ideas currently put forth.

[cheetah]

Hey, like adjective, sorry to bump a (significantly) old topic, but I was reading about a book by Dr. Lee Spetner on the modern evolution theory entitled "Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Evolution Theory". Spetner talks of evolution not just happening randomly from generation to generation, but also of it happening non-randomly to fit different situations. He describes our genes as follows:

"These genetic rearrangements may be part of a built-in mechanism that permits a line of organisms to adapt to a new environment. Part of the genetic program of the organism seems to be a set of genetic switches that can be triggered by the environment. These enable a heritable switch in the organism to one of a limited set of alternate forms. An interesting feature of this mechanism is that it can cause a population to adapt rapidly to a new
environment."

I was just thinking that this answers the nature vs. nurture question regarding homosexuality. Consider if a male is in an overpopulated society and cant stand out, or whatever may trigger it, his genes will alternate to halt his procreation.

Just an idea anyhow. I was pretty impressed with the theory presented in the book, and expect to buy it soon.

[infamous]

Originally Posted by cheetah

Just an idea anyhow.

This is where all the ideas get discussed cheetah; Welcome to Hypography..................enjoy

[ughaibu]

Are there any theories as to which mice, from the genetic perspective, become non-reproductive with overcrowding? ie what is supposed to be in it for the non-reproducing (selfless) gene?

[cheetah]

Originally Posted by ughaibu

Are there any theories as to which mice, from the genetic perspective, become non-reproductive with overcrowding? ie what is supposed to be in it for the non-reproducing (selfless) gene?

I think those that are not successful as heterosexual from an early age in means of competition with other males and socialization with females. This would correlate with overpopulation. Maybe if genes can switch among several alternates, such lack of success may cause a male to not try for the females that he feels are beyond his grasp. However, that sexual drive has to go somewhere, which could lead a male to be attracted to another male just out of default more than anything else. This needs some development still, but tell me what you think...

[InfiniteNow]

Another possibility which I do not think has been brought up here is that life forms with an incredible sexual drive tend to reproduce more, and hence will be more represented in future generations. Now, one result of this hyper-sexuality (and I'm not referring to rough sex, but the increased desire to reproduce) might be overlap in desire to the other gender. I cannot recall studies done on this, although I know some exist.

Essentially:
The really horny ones increased in number more so than the less horny ones.
The trait for horniness became more dominant.
Through repeated increases in horny dominance, the gender distinction took a back seat (that works on so many levels ) to an increased sex drive.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with overpopulation...


As always, this is just how I opine on the subject.

[cheetah]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Through repeated increases in horny dominance, the gender distinction took a back seat (that works on so many levels ) to an increased sex drive.

Two problems with this:

1. This would mean that since humans have existed, they have gotten more sexually active ("hornier"), but this is clearly proven untrue just by looking around at other people. We're not living in a world of David Lee Roths.

2. If homosexuality is just an increased sex drive, then it shouldn't distinguish itself between male and female. Homosexual males are not attracted to females.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by cheetah

Two problems with this:

1. This would mean that since humans have existed, they have gotten more sexually active ("hornier"), but this is clearly proven untrue just by looking around at other people. We're not living in a world of David Lee Roths.

2. If homosexuality is just an increased sex drive, then it shouldn't distinguish itself between male and female. Homosexual males are not attracted to females.

1. Sure we are. We are much more sexual now than... let's say, in Vicorian times. The distintion is abundantly clear even between say... baby boomers and generation Y. Kids these days have more sex, per capita, than did their parents, who in turn had more sex, per capita, than their parents... and on and on and on.

2. Why not? Why shouldn't it distinguish itself between males and females? Some people love ice cream, and will eat ice cream any day of the week, but still may prefer chocolate over vanilla...

[cheetah]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

1. Sure we are. We are much more sexual now than... let's say, in Vicorian times. The distintion is abundantly clear even between say... baby boomers and generation Y. Kids these days have more sex, per capita, than did their parents, who in turn had more sex, per capita, than their parents... and on and on and on.

2. Why not? Why shouldn't it distinguish itself between males and females? Some people love ice cream, and will eat ice cream any day of the week, but still may prefer chocolate over vanilla...

1. We are not more sexual now, the rules are just more lax, which is clear in every part of society, not only sexual. For instance, there are less religious views now, and those are the rules that prevented people from having sex before getting married.

2. Basically, your original argument was that we became so sexually active that the radius of what we are sexually attracted to crossed in to our own sex. No matter what in this case, a male should always love a female moreso than he could love a male. This theory could explain bisexuality, but not homosexuality.