Overpopulation and homosexuality

[cheetah]

Can you answer the questions now?

 

I believe I already have:

 

You said: "Why put limitations on love? Why should a male always love a female moreso than he could love a male? Is it not a personal preference?"

 

My statement of a male always loving a female moreso than another male was taken out of context. I was using your own theory that homosexuals are simply very "horny" people who like the same sex simply because their sexual appetite range is so great. Based on this, a "homosexual" person could not have no attraction to the opposite sex, while having a large attraction to the same sex.

 

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say before, and sorry I wasn't clear enough.

[InfiniteNow]

I hope this clears up what I was trying to say before, and sorry I wasn't clear enough.

Actually, the lack of clarity was on my end. The theory as you described it is not what I meant to entail at all. It's not that homosexuality is just hornier people, by no means...

 

Just that, through several generations the ones who desired sex more have reproduced more often, and hence this trait is now more common. As a result of this trait being continually selected for, there have been some possible overlaps in desire. Obviously, all heterosexual people are the result of successful sexual parents too. The thought is that since the horny trait has been selected for, the chances for homosexuality has simultaneously gone up alongside the selection of this trait.

 

Not sure if this clears it up at all, but, I kinda came up with the idea while I was writing the response to the original question so hadn't thought it through completely. Hope this helps.

 

 

Cheers. :eek2:

[TheFaithfulStone]

For the record, the sexual proclivity spectrum is not neatly divded into two parts.

 

I wish I could find the graph (it was in my college Health text) that showed a six part bar graph. Basically it goes like this.

 

1 = 90% - Exclusively Hetero

2 = 4% - Mostly Hetero, accidental Homosexual contact.

3 = 3% - Largerly Hetero, some homo

4 = 2% - largely homo, some hetero

5 = 1% - mostly homo, accidental hetero

6 = >0% - exclusively homosexual (very, very few people)

 

So Buffy's theory that it's an effective "preserve the species" strategy has some merit. As population pressure increase, the scale slides more and more to the homosexual side, but never completely eliminates the breeding population. In otherwords, the graph can swing both ways. :)

 

I wish I could find the book, where I saw this, but I seem to have lost it.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

For the record, the sexual proclivity spectrum is not neatly divded into two parts.

 

I wish I could find the graph (it was in my college Health text) that showed a six part bar graph. Basically it goes like this.

 

1 = 90% - Exclusively Hetero

2 = 4% - Mostly Hetero, accidental Homosexual contact.

3 = 3% - Largerly Hetero, some homo

4 = 2% - largely homo, some hetero

5 = 1% - mostly homo, accidental hetero

6 = >0% - exclusively homosexual (very, very few people)

 

So Buffy's theory that it's an effective "preserve the species" strategy has some merit. As population pressure increase, the scale slides more and more to the homosexual side, but never completely eliminates the breeding population. In otherwords, the graph can swing both ways. :eek:

 

I wish I could find the book, where I saw this, but I seem to have lost it.

Thanks for the data, but a couple of quick points on the percentages...

 

• When was the data collected? Over time preferences shift (as is clearly being articulated by almost all posters in this thread).
  
• How large was the sample?
  
• What was the region of the sample? (was just Kentucky? whole US? just north/south of the equator? whole globe? just tribes in Africa...???)
  
• How representative was the sample? (i.e. Is it an accurate cross-section of the population being studied)
  
• What was the error of the sample?
  
• What was the percentage of people who have sex with animals, dead people, holes in random walls, relatives, floatation devices, apple pies, transvestites, soda bottles, chinese finger traps... :)

 

:)

[TheFaithfulStone]

Man, I got no idea. I can't find the book at all.

 

And even if I COULD find it, it was only a survey course!

 

I'm not guaranteeing those percentages to be accurate, either, those are just what I remember.

 

On the other hand, it was a text book. On the other, other hand, I don't live in Kansas. On the other, other, other hand - I just like symmetry, so I need four hands.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

On the other hand, it was a text book. On the other, other hand, I don't live in Kansas. On the other, other, other hand - I just like symmetry, so I need four hands.

LOL TFS... :)

 

I forgot another key question: What was the situation in which the survey was conducted, and how confidential did respondents perceive their responses to be? Many people will flat out lie, especially concerning homosexuality, if they don't feel 100% and completely safe in their anonymity and the confidentiality of their responses.

 

 

Four hands.... :eek: You'd make one hell of a bartender!

[tynkyr_belle]

I've also read the study (and ALSO can't find mention of it now) about rats in a controlled area with varying populations and the correlative variance of homosexuality.

 

I keep hearing people talking about genes as though they're a light switch. Either ON or OFF.

 

That's not how ALL genes work. Some genes can be affected by "coactivation" (A coactivator is a protein that increases gene expression by binding to an activator)

 

I've read (but now can't find, darn-it-all) that it's the MOTHER that determines the sexuality. That stressors during pregnancy affect levels of a type of testosterone that would then "turn on" the expression of homosexuality. If the mother has the gene for this AND she is under stress during the exact part of her pregnancy for this to have an effect, then the child will be gay. Thus, not ALL children from her will be gay, and even in the case of identical twins, it might not be enough of an effect for both to be affected.

 

Population control is the only logical explanation thus far put forth for the existence of homosexuality. It's obviously a survival trait that Mother Nature has so thoughtfully provided. It's really too sad that we'd rather use superstition and religious delusion to explain the real world than to open our minds (and our hearts) and realize that homosexuality is a NATURAL part of life on Earth. No one chooses to be gay. No one chooses to be straight. It just IS, and for the betterment of all mankind! (especially in this day and age when most of our problems like pollution, wars, famine, global warming, etc are caused by overpopulation)

[Michaelangelica]

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

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.

Sorry to bump a 3 year- old post.

This is an interesting article on transsexuals

Transsexual Smokescreen: Ignoring Science In ?The Man Who Would Be Queen?

It is amazing the attention non-heterosexual activity attracts from Christians, especially the "old"-Bible, literal fundamentalists.

What are they frightened of?

Surely not that these people will go to Hell?

[Moontanman]

It is amazing the attention non-heterosexual activity attracts from Christians, especially the "old"-Bible, literal fundamentalists.

What are they frightened of?

Surely not that these people will go to Hell?

 

I think it has at least something to do with fear mongering, the party line i heard growing up was that homosexual sex is so tempting that unless you have Jesus you will not be able to resist temptation be doomed to fate worse than death, homosexuality In some ways it resembled the whole girls who have sex outside marriage will be doomed to a fate worse than death deal of the Victorian age.

[PinkEye]

For the record, the sexual proclivity spectrum is not neatly divded into two parts.

 

I wish I could find the graph (it was in my college Health text) that showed a six part bar graph. Basically it goes like this.

 

1 = 90% - Exclusively Hetero

2 = 4% - Mostly Hetero, accidental Homosexual contact.

3 = 3% - Largerly Hetero, some homo

4 = 2% - largely homo, some hetero

5 = 1% - mostly homo, accidental hetero

6 = >0% - exclusively homosexual (very, very few people)

 

So Buffy's theory that it's an effective "preserve the species" strategy has some merit. As population pressure increase, the scale slides more and more to the homosexual side, but never completely eliminates the breeding population. In otherwords, the graph can swing both ways. :)

 

I wish I could find the book, where I saw this, but I seem to have lost it.

 

TFS

 

How is it that you have these numbers but not the source?

Unless I'm interpreting the data incorrectly (let me know if I am), I find the 0% exclusively homosexual line quite unbelievable. I'd like to know more about where this data came from. A very very large number of 100% homosexual individuals have had a heterosexual encounter early in life before they confirmed that they were only attracted to the same sex. If these percentages were arrived at by a survey that asked, something to the effect of "have you ever had a heterosexual encounter", then I imagine almost all individuals who were 100% homosexual at the time of the survey would have to answer "yes" to that. That makes exclusive homosexuality look a lot less common than it is. I'm only speculating here, I just find that percentage ridiculous and crave some clarification. :)

[PinkEye]

I don't want to attack or defend homosexuality, but...

 

Read up on a study done a while ago where a bunch of mice was enclosed in a 10sq meter space, with enough food and water regardless of population size. Needless to say, they thrived, bred, multiplied, and in a very short while there was hundreds of them. Then thousands. Keep in mind, food was never a problem. So, overpopulation ensued.

Now - the interesting thing is that the heavier the population pressure became, the more males started having sex with other males and ignored the females completely. Females started having sex with other females as well, which could be a dominance thing. They repeated the test with monkeys, with the same result, as well as a spectacular increase in violence.

Now - could this be applied to human societies, where homosexuality and violence (think gang-warfare, etc.) occur mostly (not exclusively, though) in large cities? If that's the case, aren't psychologists digging up the wrong tree when they speculate on what happened in childhood that could turn a person gay, or blame it on the individual's genetic makeup, even?

Interesting...

 

I've just started reading a report on what seems to be one of first and the most cited experiments of this kind. "Death Squared: The Explosive Growth and Demise of a Mouse Population" by John B Calhoun, M.D. The report is riddled with Bible quotes. Honestly, I didn't finish reading the report. For me, ALL credibility went out the window at the 2nd and 3rd Bible quote and there is no need to read further.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, PinkEye! :) Good catch on this old post :thumbs_up

For the record, the sexual proclivity spectrum is not neatly divded into two parts.

 

I wish I could find the graph (it was in my college Health text) that showed a six part bar graph. Basically it goes like this.

 

1 = 90% - Exclusively Hetero

2 = 4% - Mostly Hetero, accidental Homosexual contact.

3 = 3% - Largerly Hetero, some homo

4 = 2% - largely homo, some hetero

5 = 1% - mostly homo, accidental hetero

6 = >0% - exclusively homosexual (very, very few people)

 

So Buffy's theory that it's an effective "preserve the species" strategy has some merit. As population pressure increase, the scale slides more and more to the homosexual side, but never completely eliminates the breeding population. In otherwords, the graph can swing both ways. :)

 

I wish I could find the book, where I saw this, but I seem to have lost it.

 

TFS

 

How is it that you have these numbers but not the source?

Unless I'm interpreting the data incorrectly (let me know if I am), I find the 0% exclusively homosexual line quite unbelievable. I'd like to know more about where this data came from. ...

My guess is that TheFaithfulStone was remembering a textbook reference to the Kinsey Scale introduced in Kinsey’s famous 1948 “report”. The scale actually has 8 values, including “X = asexual”, but given the uncertainty’s of memory, TFS’s recollection strikes me as pretty good.

 

His recollection of the numbers, however, seem badly skewed. According to Kinsey, 63% of males and 87% of females are “exclusively hererosexual”, meaning they have never engaged in same-sex contract resulting in organsm. About 4% of white males and 2-6% of females were found to be “exclusively homosexual”, having not had sex-to-orgasm with an opposite-sex partner. (source: this Kinsey Institute webpage)

 

:Exclamati I think it’s important, though, to understand Kinsey and other’s admonition that you can’t categorize people by “sexual orientation”, even on a continuum, the way we can by, say, blood type. We can only make statement about their sexual behavior at various points in their life histories. People may be exclusively hetero or homosexual for their entire lives, or only portions of their lives. Human sexuality is complicated!