Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Edpsy77

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
  1. I agree there are pan-sexuals/bi-sexuals. However, there are also homosexuals who are only attracted to the same sex and heterosexuals who are only attracted to the opposite sex. I don't see why I would question someone who says the have only a same sex orientation. Homosexuality is certainly not imposed by our mainstream society while heterosexuality is the dominant orientation that is overwhelmingly promoted. Yes your theory is valid to some degree. However, a vast majority straight men and women fail to engage in homosexuality in prison even it is used as a "substitute" for straight sex. Many homosexuals are not attracted to anyone of the opposite sex. Many straight people are not attracted to anyone of the same sex. Thus, how can evolutionary psychological theories on sexuality which center on passing genes apply to gays and lesbians who are attracted to the same sex? I am not asserting that homosexuality is morally invalid. Homosexuality would be valid whether it is caused biologically or sociologically. However, I don't see how I can reconcile the validity of homosexuality within most of the theories that are posited under evolutionary psychology. For instance, large numbers of evolutionary psychologists base alleged gender differences in sexual behavior on the assumption that males can produce more offspring than females. However, it is obvious that they are referring to heterosexual mating rather than homosexual mating. I have rarely seen studies that mention other evolutionary purposes for sex except for passing genes. Proponents of Darwinian sexual theories will concede that humans can use sex beyond procreation but this fact does not change the fundamental biological intent behind sexual urges: procreative desire. In other words, every sexual arousal is a cry from an organism to pass his or her genes. I don't see how it would be expensive, if nature failed to put sexual desire in species as a means of preventing overpopulation. The desire is only necessary when it is used as a means to procreate. I am referring to the desire on genetic terms not social terms. Although, homosexual relationships have provided valuable romantic/sexual relationships to benefit humanity, they are waste within the context of passing genes. I agree. I have heard that many Darwinian psychologists attempt to apply theories that are commonly used to explain gender differences in sexual behavior between straight males and females to gays and lesbians. Claimed differences in sexual attitude/behavior between straight males and females are based on studies that assume sex is primarily for passing genes. Even though gays and lesbians can raise children, they cannot produce offspring by engaging in homosexual behavior. There is nothing wrong with that even if homosexuality was a choice but the fact remains they are unable to procreate by engaging only homosexual behavior.Thus, how can heterosexual mating strategies be applied to homosexual behavior?
  2. The genetic creation of homosexuality is a mystery to me. Although I believe there is a genetic component to same sex attraction, I have not heard any valid explanation for its existence. One of the purposes of heterosexuality is to pass on genes and reproduce. Thus, it makes sense that the male-female attraction is in part due to the need for the human species to procreate. Some scientists have made the conjecture that perhaps homosexuality was a means of population control. However, the most logical orientation in that case would be asexuality(lack sexual desire at all). If nature knew there was no possibility to procreate under same sex attraction, it would be equally plausible for nature to produce offspring that lacked sexual desire in order to control the population. Thus, I am wondering if any of you who are familiar with scientific principles can explain to me how it could be scientifically logical for humans to have genetically produced behavior of same-sex attraction which has a reproductive purpose. Many evolutionary psychologists still consider the sexual urges of gays and lesbians as sexual urges that are linked to procreation. How can that be when same-sex orientation is incapable of spreading genes or procreating and it has been established that only the opposite-sex attraction is a genetic sexual-attraction paradigm which at times results in procreation.If I am wrong with any of my assumptions, please let me know. Please tell me what is flawed in my thinking. I am truly confused.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.