|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Burner 
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 28 2000,14:41 |
|
    |
Yeah, this is all fucking weird... Psychoanalysis says that everybody is bissexual, but usually go for the side they feel more comfortable, what is determined by how they were raised. I think that there's nothing wrong on having sexual experiences of all sorts if you want to, because sex is only about fun in the end...
I dunno... I don't criticize this cousin. He is a very togheter person. I guess he is very happy now with his girlfriend...
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
Lordbrandon
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 414
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 28 2000,19:01 |
|
|
i think it's more than how you are raised. i think its something chemical. there are gay people in every race and culture. i think its the same thing that makes straight people intrested in the oposing sex. when i look at a girl i dont feel like i was raised to think she is beautyful. i feel something more primal than somthing i was taught, its somthing thats more base thats ingrained in my being like an instinct. i dont know if its a gene or a hormone or somthing else, i think starting at a very young age like at 3 or 4 the chemicical starts to take effect. most little girls get a chemical that makes them like it when they see big strong muscles. and most little boys get a chemical that makes them like it when they see soft skin an child bearing hips. some people get more, some people get less and some people get mix and some people get the oppicite of what most people get. so what people's bodys are telling to want very dramaticly from person to person
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Burner
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 29 2000,00:15 |
|
|
But if it is chemical, what would be its purpose? There is always a "purpose" in biology, but I can't think of any in this case... maybe some mechanism to control overpopulation? What do you think?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
floyd
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 29 2000,00:28 |
|
|
Actually, that sounds realistic...though on the other hand, I'm sure GLAD and all those other people wouldn't like homosexuality being compared to diseases. 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Michael
FNG
Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: Sep. 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 29 2000,01:39 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Burner:
But if it is chemical, what would be its purpose? There is always a "purpose" in biology, but I can't think of any in this case... maybe some mechanism to control overpopulation? What do you think?
OK, here's my theory. It happens to be 100\% pure speculation, with very little scientific evidence to back it up, but anyways... Many social animals, especially social insects such as bees and ants, have their communities divided into several different groups each with different functions. The purpose of some is reproduction (queens, drones, etc) while others serve the purpose of work, defense, etc. (workers, soldiers, etc.) Since human beings are, beyond a doubt, social creatures almost to the same degree as bees or termites, it makes sense to see them in a similar light. For example, it is very hard to become deeply involved in experimental research if you also have a family to raise. And those who are raising kids will value their children above their work in many situations. As for survival value and the genetics of this, it would be rather unlikely that these people would pass their genes along, thus lowering their chances of genetic survival, but communities including the genes for these "workers" would have a genetic advantage over those that did not due to a dedicated group of people whose function is mainly to contribute to the community rather than putting all their effort into raising offspring.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Hellraiser
PH34R M3
Group: Members
Posts: 977
Joined: May 2000
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 29 2000,02:03 |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael:
OK, here's my theory. It happens to be 100\% pure speculation, with very little scientific evidence to back it up, but anyways...Many social animals, especially social insects such as bees and ants, have their communities divided into several different groups each with different functions. The purpose of some is reproduction (queens, drones, etc) while others serve the purpose of work, defense, etc. (workers, soldiers, etc.) Since human beings are, beyond a doubt, social creatures almost to the same degree as bees or termites, it makes sense to see them in a similar light. For example, it is very hard to become deeply involved in experimental research if you also have a family to raise. And those who are raising kids will value their children above their work in many situations. As for survival value and the genetics of this, it would be rather unlikely that these people would pass their genes along, thus lowering their chances of genetic survival, but communities including the genes for these "workers" would have a genetic advantage over those that did not due to a dedicated group of people whose function is mainly to contribute to the community rather than putting all their effort into raising offspring.
Unfortunately, that hypothesis is faulty in that social insects, etc, have a preponderance of workers/soldiers, while humans have a preponderance of family raisers (last time I heard, the figures are something like 80\% heterosexual and 10\% each gay and bi). Also, most of the worker populations in social insects, if I remember biology right, are sterile, and determined by environment, (what they are fed or some such thing) not genes. My hypothesis is that our sexuality is determined mostly by genetics, but partly by environment. Humans are unique among animals in that many of our biological functions (other than those necessary to our immediate survival) are in part governed by intellect rather than instinct. But in terms of sexual drive, I think instinct runs deeper than intellect, and since the human species needs heterosexuals to build each generation, heterosexuality is the predominant form of sexuality. I also find it interesting to note that while deviation from heterosexuality has been observed in other animals, the percentages are much higher among the human species, leading me to believe that intellect is partially responsible for sexual variations. Just my opinions, and not much scientific evidence to back it up. Science as a whole has a lot to learn about the psyche, and most of what is "known" now is largely theories that have a higher than coincidental degree of accuracy in predictions. ------------------
Just your generic meaningless signature. Mix with 2 quarts water and stir till evenly coated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
