Jump to content
Gian

homophobia and evolutionary psychology

Recommended Posts

I think some of you are using correlations between this aspect of behavior to that aspect of a person to another aspect of arousal...to a far greater degree and placing far too much value upon such correlations as they pertain to why a person might do what they do and feel as they feel and believe.

 

First of all the way some people might react to seeing two men or two women kissing or engaging one another in some form or another of activity specific to Homosexuality...has so many possible triggers and motivations that I believe it to be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with some Baseline Correlation to determine a response.

 

Now to detail this such an example as say...4 different men's responses to seeing two men kissing.

 

Now of these 5 men...one will express revulsion in their facial response but do nothing...another will yell out a derogatory statement to the kissing men....another will turn and walk away avoiding the men as not to have to look at their activity...another will attack the men...another will look right at them and observe for a period of time.

 

Now these are just 5 men doing only 5 possible actions and there are the possibilities of many many more actions or reactions. Each person could have a wide ranging set of reasons or conditions that caused them to act in such a manner and I believe one specific to Genetic Predisposition is very possible.

 

Now if I was the person that saw two men kissing...it would gross me out.

 

Is this because I hate Gay Men...no...is it because I have a problem with Homophobia...no....does it mean I care about what another persons sexual orientation might be...no.

 

I am grossed out in the same way I would be grossed out seeing an 18 year old man making out with a 90 year old Grandma!

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now to detail this such an example as say...4 different men's responses to seeing two men kissing.

- - - -

Is this because I hate Gay Men...no...is it because I have a problem

with Homophobia...no....does it mean I care about what another persons

sexual orientation might be...no.

Every one of those responses - including your gross out reaction - is culturally mediated. There are many cultures in which a quite different set of responses would come easily to someone's mind - especially, the situation would need much more careful description than "two men kissing", which is all you assumed we would need here. (Were they friends? businessmen greeting at the airport? relatives of the bride and groom? a long term sexual couple? husbands of the same woman? enemies sealing a treaty? monks or other religious affiliates? your description is completely inadequate for a discussion of genetically based response over the species as a whole).

 

Every aspect of human culture has genetic roots. But they are deeper than that. When you say "activity specific to homosexuality" you are addressing a specific culture at a specific time - for the species there is no such thing in general, except maybe actual genital contact, and even that is up for debate. There may be, for example, no homosexual bonobos - either they all are, or none of them are.

 

Now consider what the response might be in a man attracted to men, culturally set to be strongly disapproving (disgusted, betrayed, extreme loss of status) of such attraction, and insecure about his ability to resist the attraction: the situation is a threat, a serious threat to his social order and personal status within it.

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The genetics aren't necessarily genetics for homophobia, as these data give no insight into the function these genetics had in our evolution.

Yes, that is correct. The data gives no insight into functional role.

 

They're merely genetics that allow for homophobia

The data suggests that genetics accounts for a certain percentage of the observed variance in sexual attitues toward homosexuals. So one can say that genetics contributes to the causation of the observed behaviours, rather than saying genetics simply allows for the possibility of homophobic attitudes.

 

For all we know, these same genetics would manifest as heterophobia in an heterophobic culture, hypothetically.

That is a possibility that can't be refuted, yes.

 

I think some of you are using correlations between this aspect of behavior to that aspect of a person to another aspect of arousal...to a far greater degree and placing far too much value upon such correlations as they pertain to why a person might do what they do and feel as they feel and believe.

I disagree here. The correlations actually do suggest that genetics are a causative contributor of the observed attitudes toward homosexuals. Monozygotic twins were observed to be concordant significantly more frequently than dizygotic twins. Perhaps you can elaborate and explain why the evidence should not be considered to be suggestive evidence of genetics being a causative contributor?

Each person could have a wide ranging set of reasons or conditions that caused them to act in such a manner and I believe one specific to Genetic Predisposition is very possible.

OK. I am a bit confused. You think genetic predisposition is a possibility, but don't think the correlations adequately suggest genetics as a causative contributor?

 

First of all the way some people might react to seeing two men or two women kissing or engaging one another in some form or another of activity specific to Homosexuality...has so many possible triggers and motivations that I believe it to be IMPOSSIBLE to come up with some Baseline Correlation to determine a response.

Whilst we can't accurately predict what kind of response a random individual will have, maybe with perfect knowledge of genetics and environmental factors we could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree here. The correlations actually do suggest that genetics are a

causative contributor of the observed attitudes toward homosexuals.

The word "causative" probably misleads.

 

Presumably we have the same genetics operating In cultures that do not routinely produce homophobia, so what we have here seems to be a genetic variance in predisposition for a cultural feature - more like the variance we see in the predisposition to throwing a baseball than an evolutionarily significant factor in the presence of homosexuality itself.

 

We don't normally describe the obvious genetic variance in baseball throwing tendencies as a "causative contributor" to curveballs. There may be a predisposition, but genes don't cause people to throw curveballs. Look at the complications of such an approach - it is a fact easily measured, for example, that lefthandedness involves a genetic predisposition, and curveball throwing is strongly correlated with lefthandedness - do we conclude that the genes predisposing one to lefthandedness are causitive contributors to curveball throwing? Even if they are shown (as they well may be) to correpate with physiological features that make the actual throwing of a curveball more difficult, rather than less?

 

And the situation is even more complex in the case of disorders like homophobia. Just for example, if it turns out that a genetic predisposition toward homophobia involves exactly the same code varieties that predispose one toward homosexual attraction (which is quite possible from the known correlations), the extrapolation of that to evolutionary pressures would get pretty complicated, eh?

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every one of those responses - including your gross out reaction - is culturally mediated. There are many cultures in which a quite different set of responses would come easily to someone's mind - especially, the situation would need much more careful description than "two men kissing", which is all you assumed we would need here. (Were they friends? businessmen greeting at the airport? relatives of the bride and groom? a long term sexual couple? husbands of the same woman? enemies sealing a treaty? monks or other religious affiliates? your description is completely inadequate for a discussion of genetically based response over the species as a whole).

 

Every aspect of human culture has genetic roots. But they are deeper than that. When you say "activity specific to homosexuality" you are addressing a specific culture at a specific time - for the species there is no such thing in general, except maybe actual genital contact, and even that is up for debate. There may be, for example, no homosexual bonobos - either they all are, or none of them are.

 

Now consider what the response might be in a man attracted to men, culturally set to be strongly disapproving (disgusted, betrayed, extreme loss of status) of such attraction, and insecure about his ability to resist the attraction: the situation is a threat, a serious threat to his social order and personal status within it.

 

I disagree with much you have posted.

 

A person could be disgusted with watching how another eats Eggs...that does not mean the person has an issue or phobia specific to Eggs or the nature of that person. The observing person just thinks the way that person eats eggs is gross.

 

Just because I would gross out over watching a 90 year old Grandma French Kiss an 18 year old man doesn't mean I have a Phobia about kissing Grandmas...it has to do with structure of the anatomy that is involved in the action.

 

As example...99.99999% of most people will see two things upon the sidewalk. One of those things is Vomit...in a splattered pattern....the other is a mixture of PAINT...in the same pattern just different in it's color...and even chunks of texture has been added to mimic the vomit.

 

Now...if the paint and texture identically duplicating the vomit are done so in say Red, Yellow and Blue as opposed to vomit in brown, dull yellow and pale pink...the paint splatter will not result in a negative response.

 

This issue goes beyond structure and if I see to Men French Kissing...just because I am Grossed Out because I am for a moment....and 99.9999% of Men will do this...place myself in the position of being kissed by another man...this does not mean I have a Phobia or am Homophobic or I hate Homosexual Men.

 

All it means is that my mind has placed itself in the same SAMPLING POSITION as a persons mind would do when seeing Vomit upon the sidewalk. When seeing vomit my mind puts me in the position of thinking for a split moment of the vomit I see upon the sidewalk coming out of my mouth....as I know what it is to vomit and understand the tastes, feel, smell and sick stomach involved.

 

Same thing happens as I see two men French Kissing...I know what it is to French Kiss...I know what it feels like upon my lips, tongue, throat...my cheeks touching another's cheeks...as well I know what it was to kiss my Dad as a small boy as I was happy to do so but remember the smell of my Dad's aftershave...the feel of his mustache...the sting of his razor stubble rubbing my face.

 

My brain places me in that position as the two men French Kiss and all these other memories flood my mind and because I am Heterosexual and because I am thinking about my Dad's facial hair and aftershave...I GET GROSSED OUT!

 

This doesn't mean I have a problem with the two men French Kissing. It just means I am having a NORMAL AND HEALTHY RESPONSE to my minds memory recall in combination with what I am currently seeing.

 

Some of you have made the mistake as labeling such a response as having it's roots in some Negative Feelings or Phobias a person would have specific to Homosexuals...that is like saying just because a person does not like to eat Fish...that an assumption should be made that this is due to that person Hating Fish and wanting them all dead.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brain places me in that position as the two men French Kiss and all these other memories flood my mind and because I am Heterosexual and because I am thinking about my Dad's facial hair and aftershave...I GET GROSSED OUT!

 

This doesn't mean I have a problem with the two men French Kissing. It just means I am having a NORMAL AND HEALTHY RESPONSE to my minds memory recall in combination with what I am currently seeing.

 

Didn't you kiss your mother too?

 

and where would you see men french kissing in public? Maybe it's just because I live in the uptight U.S., but I've never seen people french kiss in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- - -

All it means is that my mind has placed itself in the same SAMPLING

POSITION as a persons mind would do when seeing Vomit upon the sidewalk.

- - -

My brain places me in that position as the two men French Kiss and

all these other memories flood my mind and because I am Heterosexual and

because I am thinking about my Dad's facial hair and aftershave...I GET

GROSSED OUT!

This doesn't mean I have a problem with the two men French Kissing.

It just means I am having a NORMAL AND HEALTHY RESPONSE - - -

I think if you react to the sight of men kissing as you do to the thought of stepping in vomit, you do have a problem with men kissing. Not everybody in homophobia ridden cultures, and almost nobody in non-homophobic cultures, reacts like that.

 

If the disgust is restricted to French kissing, I'm wondering why only French kissing reminds you of kissing your father, why heterosexual kissing does not remind you of kissing your mother, etc. The whole scene seems pretty obviously culturally mediated in every detail - aftershave, facial hair, childraising practices, public displays of affection in general. In many cultures mothers tease their male children by pulling on their penises - if you ran into a guy from one of those cultures who got disgusted at the thought of women touching his penis because it reminded him of his mother, compared the act with stepping in vomit, what would you think of his mental setup?

 

Consider a parallel: I get disgusted at the thought of cleaning my asshole with my bare hand after defecation. I have a slight, mild phobia about handling feces in general - like climbing a bit too high on a ladder, I have to sort of mentally brace myself to do it - and the connection seems to me obvious. But I know it's cultural - in many places all over the planet, everybody does that routinely every day of their lives without a moment's hesitation. It's just what I'm used to, conditioned to, and I would no more look for a genetic cause for that than I would for throwing curveballs or becoming nauseated at the thought of eating pork. The concept of "causation" in genetics just doesn't work at that level - of course genetics has influence here and everywhere, but not like that.

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't you kiss your mother too?

 

and where would you see men french kissing in public? Maybe it's just because I live in the uptight U.S., but I've never seen people french kiss in public.

 

Of course I have kissed my Mom...and I would be just as Grossed Out if I saw a woman of my Mom's age French Kissing a young male as for a split second my brain would make the association where I was at the age of this young male and the thought of French Kissing my Mom...Ughhh!

 

I am a Touring and Signed Musician and in the circles I travel and am in it is often that I might be at a CD Release Party and see such behavior.

 

Split Infinity

 

I think if you react to the sight of men kissing as you do to the thought of stepping in vomit, you do have a problem with men kissing. Not everybody in homophobia ridden cultures, and almost nobody in non-homophobic cultures, reacts like that.

 

If the disgust is restricted to French kissing, I'm wondering why only French kissing reminds you of kissing your father, why heterosexual kissing does not remind you of kissing your mother, etc. The whole scene seems pretty obviously culturally mediated in every detail - aftershave, facial hair, childraising practices, public displays of affection in general. In many cultures mothers tease their male children by pulling on their penises - if you ran into a guy from one of those cultures who got disgusted at the thought of women touching his penis because it reminded him of his mother, compared the act with stepping in vomit, what would you think of his mental setup?

 

Consider a parallel: I get disgusted at the thought of cleaning my asshole with my bare hand after defecation. I have a slight, mild phobia about handling feces in general - like climbing a bit too high on a ladder, I have to sort of mentally brace myself to do it - and the connection seems to me obvious. But I know it's cultural - in many places all over the planet, everybody does that routinely every day of their lives without a moment's hesitation. It's just what I'm used to, conditioned to, and I would no more look for a genetic cause for that than I would for throwing curveballs or becoming nauseated at the thought of eating pork. The concept of "causation" in genetics just doesn't work at that level - of course genetics has influence here and everywhere, but not like that.

 

Your reply to my post is in a manner and specific to what I am telling all here is the incorrect assumption upon why a person might react a certain way when seeing or experiencing certain things.

 

You immediately associated my disgust at seeing two men French Kiss and then my statement detailing how for a moment my mind puts me in a position relative to my experiences as a reaction that is Phobia generated or my reaction is created due to some deep seated issue I might have with French Kissing, My Father and Homosexuality.

 

This kind of thinking you are detailing is FLAWED. Now it doesn't mean that there are not people out there who would react this way because of a Phobia or Latent Homosexual Tendencies they cannot come to terms with...there are such people. But there are many other possible reasons for a person to be Disgusted after viewing such behavior.

 

Here is the problem that is prevalent to the thinking of many over sensitive Homosexuals. They automatically assume that just because a person might not like or be disgusted with some Same Sex Sexual based Activities...ie...French Kissing, Having each others Hands around the others back and placed in their partners back pocket, Dressing Up like the Opposite Sex, Men talking in an overly effeminate manner and women talking in an overly masculine manner...etc...

 

....that because a person might view this with unease or disgust that the problem lies with that uneasy or disgusted person and so that person must have issue, find unacceptable or hate Homosexuals because of Homophobia, Latent Homosexual Tendencies or Religious Beliefs.

 

This is not always the case and many times what is the case is that such a person doesn't really have issue with OTHERS engaging in such activity but such a person DOES HAVE ISSUE HAVING TO VIEW SUCH ACTIVITIES....as is my case.

 

When did it all of a sudden become wrong for a person to NOT LIKE SOMETHING? I don't like eating Liver and I will tend to gag if I see someone eating it as well as when I smell it. Now do I have an issue with this person eating Liver or do I think there is something wrong with them for doing so? NO!

 

I just don't want to see the person eating it or smell the liver.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You immediately associated my disgust at seeing two men French Kiss and
then my statement detailing how for a moment my mind puts me in a
position relative to my experiences as a reaction that is Phobia
generated or my reaction is created due to some deep seated issue I
might have with French Kissing, My Father and Homosexuality.

You added the French kissing later. Your first, natural, unprovoked comparison was between you seeing two people kissing and you stepping in vomit. What am I supposed to think?

and I would be just as Grossed Out if I saw a woman of my Mom's age
French Kissing a young male as for a split second my brain would make
the association where I was at the age of this young male and the
thought of French Kissing my Mom

And you seem oblivious to the fact that the key factor of age had to be introduced, to draw the parallel with your mom - that was not necessary for the invocation of your father. . And that is significant.

 

They automatically assume that just because a person might not like or
be disgusted with some Same Sex Sexual based Activities...ie...French
Kissing, Having each others Hands around the others back and placed in
their partners back pocket, Dressing Up like the Opposite Sex, Men
talking in an overly effeminate manner and women talking in an overly
masculine manner...etc.

The problem here is your lack of cultural awareness and the obliviousness to the source of your disgust or whatever - you seem to think that "dressing up like the opposite sex" or an "effeminate manner" are some kind of of universal properties of human behavior, rather than the specifically cultural and even personal labels they are easily shown to to be.

 

Example: Notice thge lack of parallel between "effeminate" and "masculine" in your attempted parallel construction there - there is a clear difference, in your mind, between feminine and effeminate, and you would have to think a bit to come up with a similarly pejorative term for the actually analagous subcategory of masculine, but you do not notice this problem.

 

Example: the Iroquois reds of North America were famous for their strong masculinity, their toughness and courage and physical prowess and so forth. The last great political leader of the Iroquois Confederacy, Tecumseh, was widely admired throughout white culture for his masculine character, long after his death - to the point that people trying to sell engines and similar machinery adopted his name as a brand, hoping for some image inhancement as durable and dependable and rugged. Yet his speech was effeminate, by modern US English standards - he talked with what we would hear as a lisp, as did all Iroquois warriors. His name was pronounced more like "Tecumtheh" than the revealingly altered form we know him by. He also wore makeup and jewelry, styled and colored his hair, chose his wardrobe with care for beauty and fashion, and slapped rather than punched when he hit someone. All those were masculine behaviors, in his culture.

 

If he walked down the street today, you apparently would take offense at his effeminacy - that would be wrong of you. Myopic in the extreme.

 

{quote] When did it all of a sudden become wrong for a person to NOT LIKE SOMETHING? When you extrapolate from a personal and fairly dubious set of dislikes and cultural prejudices to universal human nature. We all have our kinks and foibles - we don't all project them unto humanity in general, as norms. Not liking oatmeal or poached eggs is fine - treating oatmeal eaters and egg poachers as dubious people who should hide their preferences for your psychological comfort is an attempt to bully.

 

And the entire argument is all but irrelevant to the thread - the very introduction of it is symptomatic.

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You added the French kissing later. Your first, natural, unprovoked comparison was between you seeing two people kissing and you stepping in vomit. What am I supposed to think?

 

And you seem oblivious to the fact that the key factor of age had to be introduced, to draw the parallel with your mom - that was not necessary for the invocation of your father. . And that is significant.

 

The problem here is your lack of cultural awareness and the obliviousness to the source of your disgust or whatever - you seem to think that "dressing up like the opposite sex" or an "effeminate manner" are some kind of of universal properties of human behavior, rather than the specifically cultural and even personal labels they are easily shown to to be.

 

Example: Notice thge lack of parallel between "effeminate" and "masculine" in your attempted parallel construction there - there is a clear difference, in your mind, between feminine and effeminate, and you would have to think a bit to come up with a similarly pejorative term for the actually analagous subcategory of masculine, but you do not notice this problem.

 

Example: the Iroquois reds of North America were famous for their strong masculinity, their toughness and courage and physical prowess and so forth. The last great political leader of the Iroquois Confederacy, Tecumseh, was widely admired throughout white culture for his masculine character, long after his death - to the point that people trying to sell engines and similar machinery adopted his name as a brand, hoping for some image inhancement as durable and dependable and rugged. Yet his speech was effeminate, by modern US English standards - he talked with what we would hear as a lisp, as did all Iroquois warriors. His name was pronounced more like "Tecumtheh" than the revealingly altered form we know him by. He also wore makeup and jewelry, styled and colored his hair, chose his wardrobe with care for beauty and fashion, and slapped rather than punched when he hit someone. All those were masculine behaviors, in his culture.

 

If he walked down the street today, you apparently would take offense at his effeminacy - that would be wrong of you. Myopic in the extreme.

 

{quote] When did it all of a sudden become wrong for a person to NOT LIKE SOMETHING?

When you extrapolate from a personal and fairly dubious set of dislikes and cultural prejudices to universal human nature. We all have our kinks and foibles - we don't all project them unto humanity in general, as norms. Not liking oatmeal or poached eggs is fine - treating oatmeal eaters and egg poachers as dubious people who should hide their preferences for your psychological comfort is an attempt to bully.

 

And the entire argument is all but irrelevant to the thread - the very introduction of it is symptomatic.

 

First of all there is a difference between a person speaking in a certain manner that is specific to their CULTURAL or SPEECH CENTERS as opposed to a person purposely and with effort speaking in the manner of the opposite sex. I personally believe a person has a right to do so...this does not mean I enjoy hearing it.

 

You obviously didn't read the specific as far as the Vomit and the Colorful Fake Vomit as you have immediately associated this to a negative connotation specific to Homosexuals...it is not...as well as your response to this details the overly sensitive nature with which some people deal with anything that might sound or look like a person not liking aspects of Homosexual behavior.

 

It is also apparent that you cannot come to terms with the reality that it is possible for a person such as myself to be able to make such statements detailing aspects of Homosexuality and behavior that I do not enjoy viewing...and still such a person as myself being able to defend Gay Rights and Gay Marriage.

 

Although I will defend these rights...it does not mean I enjoy viewing such actions or behaviors specific to Homosexuality...and if you think that in order for me to truly not have issues with Homosexuality would demand that I would not have issues viewing such activity...well...then...YOU are just as at fault as the people who BASH HOMOSEXUALS AND HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS.

 

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with a person who dislikes viewing Homosexual Activity. To be in this category one does not have to be Homophobic or Hate Homosexuals.

 

Your argument can be addressed and proven FLAWED by this simple fact.. Two Married Homosexual Men...Two Married Homosexual Women and a Married Heterosexual Couple receive two PORN DVD's specific to the other two couples sexual orientation.

 

All couples start viewing the DVD's in bed as a precursor to sexual activity.

 

Now I am going to present this as what the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THE MAJORITIES APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL VIEWING SUCH PORN AND ALTHOUGH DIFFERENT PEOPLE WILL LIKE OR DISLIKE VIEWING SUCH PORN DIFFERENT THAN THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF THE MAJORITY...IT IS OF THE MAJORITY I WILL TALK ABOUT HERE.

 

Also the PORN DVD's FOR ALL COUPLES are standard "TRINITY"....or ORAL, ANAL AND REPRODUCTIVE ORGAN SEXUAL ACTIVITY and none include any other sexual activity or particular FETISH beyond what is listed.

 

The Majority of Married Hetero Couples when viewing the Gay Men PORN DVD...will have a RESPONSE FROM A NEGATIVE FEELING TO ONE OF DISGUST.

The Majority of Hetero Couples when viewing the Lesbian Women PORN DVD will have a RESPONSE NEGATIVE TO DISGUST IN FEELINGS FROM THE FEMALE AND POSITIVE TO A STATE OF SEXUAL AROUSAL FROM THE MALES.

 

The Majority of Married Female Homosexual Couples when viewing the Gay Men PORN DVD...BOTH will have a RESPONSE THAT IS POSITIVE IN THEIR FEELINGS OF HOMOSEXUAL KINSHIP BUT NOT A STATE OF SEXUAL AROUSAL.

The Majority of Married Female Homosexual Couples when viewing the Hetero PORN DVD...BOTH will show positive interest in viewing the Hetero Female's sexual activity upon the DVD...but in the MAJORITY OF LESBIAN COUPLES...ONLY ONE will have a RESPONSE THAT GOES FROM POSITIVE IN THEIR FEELINGS TO SEXUAL AROUSAL due to the Male involvement.

 

The Majority of Married Male Homosexual Couples when viewing the Lesbian PORN DVD...BOTH will have FEELINGS OF DISGUST upon viewing the LESBIAN PORN but will have POSITIVE FEELINGS as far as having a kinship with other HOMOSEXUALS.

Upon viewing the HETERO PORN...the Majority of Married Male Homosexual Couples...ONE WILL HAVE NEGATIVE FEELINGS TO FEELINGS OF DISGUST while the other will have POSITIVE FEELINGS TO FEELINGS OF SEXUAL AROUSAL.

 

Now when one looks at an overview of all feelings of all couples be those feelings, positive, negative...feelings of Kinship or feelings of Sexual Arousal...it should be noted that despite the fact that some or both members of the Homosexual Couples expressed Negative Feelings to Feelings of Disgust viewing either of the other Homosexual Couples sexual orientation specific PORN. Yet both Homosexual Couples still expressed positive feelings of KINSHIP.

 

Now even though one member or both members of the Homosexual Couples expressed a Negative Feeling or Feelings of DISGUST when watching the HETERO PORN DVD's...I would be HARD PRESSED TO FIND a Homosexual Person that would be crying out...."DISCRIMINATION!"...or creating a LOBBY GROUP to bring FORTH THE ISSUES OF THE NEED FOR CONGRESS TO GRANT MONEY FOR PROGRAMS TO EDUCATE HOMOSEXUALS on how such DISCRIMINATION AND NEGATIVE FEELINGS OF DISGUST given or shown to HETEROSEXUAL ACTIVITY AND BEHAVIOR...is wrong and must stop.

 

You can't have it both way's.

 

The reality is...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH A PERSON DISLIKING SOMETHING...as long as such dislike does not violate a persons rights.

 

Split Infinity...p.s...I reserve the right to get grossed out whenever I might see two Men French Kissing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Example: Notice thge lack of parallel between "effeminate" and "masculine" in your attempted parallel construction there - there is a clear difference, in your mind, between feminine and effeminate, and you would have to think a bit to come up with a similarly pejorative term for the actually analagous subcategory of masculine, but you do not notice this problem..

I'm not sure what your point is here, The analagous terms leaps instantly to mind, requiring no more time than to respond to "what do you call the green stuff on a lawn". Obviously the word is macho. It may or may not be telling that you were unable to recognise that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

overtone....I have NEVER been a fan or like the Village People.

 

I don't care for their music and I would not enjoy watching them perform on stage.

 

As well...whenever I might hear their song...YMCA...and I disliked this song when I first heard it and when I did was on the radio when I was just a kid when the Village People had just released it back in the 70's....and this was before I had found out about the Homosexual undertones and references in the song....when I heard it back in the 70's I disliked it and wondered why ANYONE WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE FUN TO STAY AT THE YMCA.

 

When I hear it now and of course being older I now know exactly what the song is really about...and it sure as Hell isn't about Championing being in the unfortunate position of having to stay at the YMCA as a Heterosexual Male. As several members of the original Village People were and are gay they found a way to connect with the Gay Disco Crowd in such a way as to pass the FCC censorship rules back in the 70's and although reading the majority of the lyrics one would at that time not see anything related to Homosexuality...as there are several areas in the lyrics that are subtle details or clues to the intent of the song such as...You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find many way's to have a good time....They have everything you men to enjoy, You can hang out with all the boy's...You can do whatever you feel...Young Man, What do you want to be?

 

Now do I have a problem with the song or it's intent? NO. Do I feel the lyrics are offensive? NO. Do I enjoy listening to the song? NO. Do I enjoy listening to the lyrics that are specific to Homosexual activity or targeted to a Homosexual listeners? NO.

 

Does the fact that I do not like or enjoy such aspects of this song I have detailed mean in ANYWAY that I am Homophobic or HATE HOMOSEXUALS? NO!

 

It just means I don't like the song. And the fact the song was purposely written for a specific demographic is only a secondary consideration of why I don't enjoy it.

 

Like I have stated before...there is nothing wrong with a person not liking something...as long as their dislike does not violate the rights of others.

 

 

"Y.M.C.A."

Young man, there's no need to feel down.
I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.
I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town
There's no need to be unhappy.

Young man, there's a place you can go.
I said, young man, when you're short on your dough.
You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find
Many ways to have a good time.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

They have everything for you men to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys ...

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,
You can do whatever you feel...

Young man, are you listening to me?
I said, young man, what do you want to be?
I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.
But you got to know this one thing!

No man does it all by himself.
I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,
And just go there, to the Y.M.C.A.
I'm sure they can help you today.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

They have everything for you men to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys...

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,
You can do whatever you feel ...

Young man, I was once in your shoes.
I said, I was down and out with the blues.
I felt no man cared if I were alive.
I felt the whole world was so jive ...

That's when someone came up to me,
And said, young man, take a walk up the street.
There's a place there called the Y.M.C.A.
They can start you back on your way.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.
It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

They have everything for you men to enjoy,
You can hang out with all the boys...

Y.M.C.A....you'll find it at the Y.M.C.A.

Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down.
Young man, young man, get yourself off the ground.

Y.M.C.A....you'll find it at the Y.M.C.A.

Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down.
Young man, young man, get yourself off the ground.

Y.M.C.A....just go to the Y.M.C.A.

Young man, young man, are you listening to me?
Young man, young man, what do you want to be?
Village People
Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

overtone....I have NEVER been a fan or like the Village People.

 

I don't care for their music and I would not enjoy watching them perform on stage.

 

As well...whenever I might hear their song...YMCA...and I disliked this song when I first heard it and when I did was on the radio when I was just a kid when the Village People had just released it back in the 70's....and this was before I had found out about the Homosexual undertones and references in the song....when I heard it back in the 70's I disliked it and wondered why ANYONE WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE FUN TO STAY AT THE YMCA.

 

When I hear it now and of course being older I now know exactly what the song is really about...and it sure as Hell isn't about Championing being in the unfortunate position of having to stay at the YMCA as a Heterosexual Male. As several members of the original Village People were and are gay they found a way to connect with the Gay Disco Crowd in such a way as to pass the FCC censorship rules back in the 70's and although reading the majority of the lyrics one would at that time not see anything related to Homosexuality...as there are several areas in the lyrics that are subtle details or clues to the intent of the song such as...You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find many way's to have a good time....They have everything you men to enjoy, You can hang out with all the boy's...You can do whatever you feel...Young Man, What do you want to be?

 

Now do I have a problem with the song or it's intent? NO. Do I feel the lyrics are offensive? NO. Do I enjoy listening to the song? NO. Do I enjoy listening to the lyrics that are specific to Homosexual activity or targeted to a Homosexual listeners? NO.

 

Does the fact that I do not like or enjoy such aspects of this song I have detailed mean in ANYWAY that I am Homophobic or HATE HOMOSEXUALS? NO!

 

It just means I don't like the song. And the fact the song was purposely written for a specific demographic is only a secondary consideration of why I don't enjoy it.

 

Like I have stated before...there is nothing wrong with a person not liking something...as long as their dislike does not violate the rights of others.

 

 

"Y.M.C.A."

 

Young man, there's no need to feel down.

I said, young man, pick yourself off the ground.

I said, young man, 'cause you're in a new town

There's no need to be unhappy.

 

Young man, there's a place you can go.

I said, young man, when you're short on your dough.

You can stay there, and I'm sure you will find

Many ways to have a good time.

 

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

 

They have everything for you men to enjoy,

You can hang out with all the boys ...

 

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

 

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,

You can do whatever you feel...

 

Young man, are you listening to me?

I said, young man, what do you want to be?

I said, young man, you can make real your dreams.

But you got to know this one thing!

 

No man does it all by himself.

I said, young man, put your pride on the shelf,

And just go there, to the Y.M.C.A.

I'm sure they can help you today.

 

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

 

They have everything for you men to enjoy,

You can hang out with all the boys...

 

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

 

You can get yourself clean, you can have a good meal,

You can do whatever you feel ...

 

Young man, I was once in your shoes.

I said, I was down and out with the blues.

I felt no man cared if I were alive.

I felt the whole world was so jive ...

 

That's when someone came up to me,

And said, young man, take a walk up the street.

There's a place there called the Y.M.C.A.

They can start you back on your way.

 

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

It's fun to stay at the Y.M.C.A.

 

They have everything for you men to enjoy,

You can hang out with all the boys...

 

Y.M.C.A....you'll find it at the Y.M.C.A.

 

Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down.

Young man, young man, get yourself off the ground.

 

Y.M.C.A....you'll find it at the Y.M.C.A.

 

Young man, young man, there's no need to feel down.

Young man, young man, get yourself off the ground.

 

Y.M.C.A....just go to the Y.M.C.A.

 

Young man, young man, are you listening to me?

Young man, young man, what do you want to be?

Village People
Split Infinity

 

 

Overton? I posted that video and you my friend are only making the hole deeper... I think you have bought into society's biblical thoughts on homosexuality not to mention the cultural homophobic take on these scriptures. I have always wondered about the "disgust" people feel at the sight of, for some people, a great many things. To me very little is disgusting, in fact that is an emotion i rarely feel, maybe never. Bizarre is the closest I can get to things i dislike greatly but I would like to know how this idea of Male homosexuals being effeminate and female homosexuals being masculine got started. These labels simply do not apply on most cases.

 

I have seen homosexuals kiss many times, it's odd, makes me wonder why, but disgust just isn't there. I question the idea that disgust is somehow genetic, I think it's cultural to label certain things as disgusting, in some cultures cheese is considered extremely disgusting but those same people or children of those people raised in another culture eat cheese with gusto.... I doubt that disgust is genetic, so far i have seen zero evidence to suggest it is anything at best but a learned behavior... and at worst a misapplied label...

 

Oh btw, I caught what it was about the first time I heard macho man, I thought it was hilarious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I will defend these rights...it does not mean I enjoy viewing such actions or behaviors specific to Homosexuality...

From an evolutionary perspective, as in the thread title, there are no

culturally defined actions or behaviors specific to homosexuallity.

Also, why do you capitalize the term?

- - "there is a clear difference, in your mind, between feminine and effeminate, and you would have to think a bit to come up with a

similarly pejorative term for the actually analagous subcategory of masculine, but you do not notice this problem.."

 

I'm not sure what your point is here, The analagous terms leaps instantly to mind, requiring no more time than to respond to "what do you call the green stuff on a lawn". Obviously the word is macho. It may or may not be telling that you were unable to recognise that.

In the first place, I was talking about his obliviousness to the lack of accuracy in his parallel construction, not mine - the implications are direct, and basic to his post: his claims depend on his ability to make such comparisons accurately in real life, on the spot, without the advantages here of rereading and reconsidering.

 

He has provided evidence contradicting most of his claims about himself and his situation, there. Which I would have thought I made perfectly clear, actually - where in my post did you see any reference to my, or anyone else's, difficulty in their use of "effeminate"?

 

In the second, in the US macho is not even reliably pejorative, let alone parallel to effeminate It is normally applied to the same, not the opposite, gender of the root. It is not used to imply inadequacy or failure or weakness, it is often employed with intensifiers ("too macho") highlighting the fact that it is not itself an indicator of boundary crossing, etc. Then there is the problem of tone - the latinate and elite-language derivation of "effeminate" is no accident (note similarly the curious usage disparity of "homosexual", which seldom refers to women), and "macho" has much different origins and cultural reference implications.

 

So even in direct criticism and in the process of addressing the issue (rather than in the oblivousness that was my central point above), an accurate term appears not quite so easily come by as all at. Not saying I couldn't do it (that wasn't my claim) - but you guys seem to be having some trouble with it, and that is significant.

 

Perhaps someone would prefer discussing the evolutionary significance of specific vocabulary in English - which is available as a topic, and would be of more interest than claims of cultural independence , evolved human nature, and inherent presumption of a lack of correlation with phobia, for a strong aversion (nausea, "vomit") to the sight of two men kissing.

 

 

- - I think you have bought into society's biblical thoughts on

homosexuality not to mention the cultural homophobic take on these

scriptures. - - -

 

- - I question the idea that disgust is

somehow genetic, I think it's cultural to label certain things as

disgusting, in some cultures cheese is considered extremely disgusting

but those same people or children of those people raised in another

culture eat cheese with gusto.... I doubt that disgust is genetic, so

far i have seen zero evidence to suggest it is anything at best but a

learned behavior... and at worst a misapplied label..

? Aside from an inversion of significance in the hierarchy of disgust (I would call the misapplied label "best", and a learned disgust for what would be in many cases a personal desire impossible to eradicate "worst") you are in complete agreement with my posting here.

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effeminate implies an over-empahsis of female characteristics. Macho implies the same for male characteristics. I find weak handshakes as laughable as power grips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overton? I posted that video and you my friend are only making the hole deeper... I think you have bought into society's biblical thoughts on homosexuality not to mention the cultural homophobic take on these scriptures. I have always wondered about the "disgust" people feel at the sight of, for some people, a great many things. To me very little is disgusting, in fact that is an emotion i rarely feel, maybe never. Bizarre is the closest I can get to things i dislike greatly but I would like to know how this idea of Male homosexuals being effeminate and female homosexuals being masculine got started. These labels simply do not apply on most cases.

 

I have seen homosexuals kiss many times, it's odd, makes me wonder why, but disgust just isn't there. I question the idea that disgust is somehow genetic, I think it's cultural to label certain things as disgusting, in some cultures cheese is considered extremely disgusting but those same people or children of those people raised in another culture eat cheese with gusto.... I doubt that disgust is genetic, so far i have seen zero evidence to suggest it is anything at best but a learned behavior... and at worst a misapplied label...

 

Oh btw, I caught what it was about the first time I heard macho man, I thought it was hilarious...

 

Yes...I know you posted it. I was just using it as a way to make a point.

 

Digging the hole deeper? In what way and what hole?

 

BIBLICAL!!???

 

Let me tell you that I am an AGNOSTIC and not only am I not religious but I disagree with a GREAT MANY THINGS that are written in the Old and New Testaments. How and for what ever possible reason you would come to such an idea and conclusion about me...well...I can only see this as YOU are making the assumption and the mistake of thinking....JUST BECAUSE I DO NOT ENJOY OR LIKE TO VIEW OR LISTEN TO ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY...well at least as far as two men are concerned because I will admit I have had sexual relations with several couples and groups of Bi-Sexual Women as being a Signed and Touring Musician tends to allow me the ability to have such experiences...THAT I AM HOMOPHOBIC OR PERHAPS HAVE LATENT HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES THAT YOU PERHAPS BELIEVE I CANNOT COME TO TERMS WITH...LOL!

 

This is not so...and if I was Homosexual I would not be ashamed as my personality leads me to be open and proud of what I am and this would not change regardless of what my sexuality was.

 

You seem not to be able to come to terms with the fact that even though I support Gay Rights and ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE...that I do not enjoy or feel DISGUST when watching TWO MEN FRENCH KISS.

 

I am a Heterosexual Alpha Male. And to be an Alpha Male is not about KICKING ASS or even is it centered around being the strongest...although strength is specific to it. It is WHAT KIND OF STRENGTH...that determines whether a Person is ALPHA in nature and one could be a Hetero Male or Female or be Bi-Sexual or Homosexual and still be ALPHA.

 

Being an ALPHA has to do with KEEPING OTHERS SAFE....BEING A LEADER...and not just calling the shots but MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS that protect and benefit the group I am charged with.

 

A persons sexuality does not matter...AS LONG AS SUCH A PERSON DOES NOT ALLOW THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION TO BECOME AN ISSUE THAT CAUSES DERISION WITHIN THE GROUP.

 

I am looked to to lead not only my Band but the Entertainment Group and all members of it that are specific to my Band as their very LIVELY HOOD DEPENDS UPON MY DECISIONS. Whether or not their kids will go to an Ivy League or Community College depends upon business decisions I make and I must take this into consideration every time I sign off on a deal...and as I will be leaving shortly to do a short tour of North America and then Europe...where I could have taken MORE DATES but since I had decided to do only LARGE VENUES for more money and less dates rather than just take every date offered where some would have been slated to occur at smaller venues....I decided that if we started to do smaller venues it would be a sign that we needed the money and this lends itself to smaller offers of money for touring.

 

Now...because I am in this world as well as help run several now large family owned companies...as well as I have a third...JOB...where I occasionally work with members of the U.S. Military....I am familiar with many sides of how people feel and act around Homosexual Employees or Team Members.

 

Now in all three of my...JOBS...I have run into issues that pertain to an employee or team member being Homosexual and because of this...there were issues and concerns expressed by other employees and team members. Since it is MY JOB to solve any and all problems including such issues as these...I have made it clear right from the start of any new employee or Team Member that ALL PEOPLE NO MATTER WHAT THEIR RACE, CREED, COLOR, SEX OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION are to be treated EQUALLY unless such things cause issues or problems with GETTING THE JOBS DONE.

 

Now as I am a "CIVILIAN"...in the manner the quotes denote...and I am in charge of my TEAM of members of the U.S. Military as well as any others I might add to the group...and such added people are wide and varied in race, creed, color, sex and sexual orientation....I have made it clear...TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE TEAM...MILITARY OR CIVILIAN OR ADDED ON BY ME...that no member will make issues or cause problems due to the nature of another within the team as well as if such...NATURE of a team member causes that team member to cause issues with others or other members...they will find themselves...DEALING WITH ME!

 

I have had Team Members who I had quickly SHIPPED OUT AND OFF THE TEAM...because they started derision within the team because we were dealing with a person that the team member had issues with because of race, creed, color, sex or sexual orientation.

 

I have also had to lay down the law and also had to remove ASSETS added to the team by me after such assets behavior was disruptive as they PURPOSELY ANTAGONIZED team members who they knew were uncomfortable working with them even if such team members never expressed it. So even though I really needed this asset...I had the asset removed from the team as there is NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS than going in to a location with Team Members who have their thoughts not on the JOB but on another Team Member and another Team Members behavior. This of course happens both ways.

 

I MYSELF...being a person some will take instant note of due to my physicality as well as my looks and my experience and ability to get the JOB done as well as SOLVE PROBLEMS...as this is what my main purpose is to begin with....I MYSELF have had to keep my MOUTH SHUT when a JOB is too important to just KICK AN ASSET OFF THE TEAM...even though this asset is causing disruptions, derision and purposely antagonizing my team members and myself....BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THEIR IMPORTANCE AND UNDERSTAND THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

 

This happens very seldom and if it was not so important that they be with us I would have staked them to the desert floor and left them. But when it does happen...it is not because...MY TEAM MEMBERS are causing it...as they know me and my rules all too well. It is happening because I have to deal with some SCUMBAG who knows their importance to the Op and because so my team and I must put up with it.

 

Now am I or my team the ones causing this problem? NO! When the asset is a Homosexual Male and since my Team is usually comprised of young male soldiers...does this always mean there is going to be a problem? NO! There are almost never any problems but there have been a few. Is it the fault of my Team Members that this asset is acting this way? NO! IT IS MY FAULT!

 

It is my fault because I am allowing it to happen because if it is happening it is because this asset is of such great importance that the dangers of having derision and anger amoungst my team members is outweighed by the benefits of having such an asset along with us.

 

Does the RELIGIOUS BELIEFS of any of my Team Members be a cause of such issues...as far as a members religious beliefs causing that member to feel uncomfortable having to rely upon a Homosexual Person in a possible Life and Death situation....WELL...I CANNOT BLAME THEM FOR THEIR BELIEFS AND FEELINGS...BUT I CAN MAKE CERTAIN THAT SUCH BELIEFS AND FEELINGS DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE JOB!

 

The same can be said of the Homosexual Person. If I have to SQUASH a persons FREEDOM OF SPEECH and suppress the FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION to keep my people safe...I WILL IN A HEART BEAT....and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORALLY OR LEGALLY WRONG WITH THIS.

 

So Moont....just as it is with ANYONE....It doesn't matter whether I personally like or dislike something. It matters not if I get disgusted when I see Two Men French Kissing...and there is nothing wrong with a person that does not enjoy or like or gets disgusted when viewing or even CONSIDERING Homosexual Activity...as long as that person is not violating the others rights.

 

If you think there will EVER be a world where a Heterosexual Person will not have some kind of Negative Thought when viewing two men French Kissing or this Hetero Person having a Negative Feeling....JUST THINKING ABOUT any kind of Homosexual Activity....then you are fooling yourself.

 

It does not matter that such activity is is NORMAL between people of such Sexual Orientation. All that matters is that such activity is not made to be illegal as that would truly be a crime.

 

Just as such activity is perfectly NORMAL between Homosexual Couples....it is just as PERFECTLY NORMAL for some other people to feel DISGUST viewing such activity. I know several Homosexual Men who work in the Music World who have told me MANY TIMES that they get DISGUSTED watching a Man have SEX with a WOMAN.

 

Are they wrong in feeling this way or are they doing something wrong by feeling this way? NO!

 

It is perfectly normal.

 

Split Infinity

 

Effeminate implies an over-empahsis of female characteristics. Macho implies the same for male characteristics. I find weak handshakes as laughable as power grips.

 

I got a good laugh when I read your post as I know EXACTLY what you are talking about! LOL!

 

Although I make sure that when I am shaking a persons hand that I do so in a strong and definitive way...I do not attempt to CRUSH another persons hand nor do I barely grasp the hand of another doing so in such a weak and questionable manner that it makes the person receiving such a weak hand shake think the other either is attempting to do so with a broken hand or that the person abhors human contact! LOL!

 

I am in almost perfect shape and I run and lift weights both free weight and using machines. I have been doing so for multiple decades as my Dad is Military and he made certain my baby Fat came off quickly at a young age and indoctrinated me into a workout regiment that because of what I do in two of my...JOBS...is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY.

 

Still...even though I am fit and strong I would...NEVER....squeeze a persons had to the crushing point as I have seen others do as well as this happens to me often when I meet guy's that lift and are in LOVE WITH THEIR OWN REFLECTION! LOL!

 

They meet me and the first thing they do is get a grip of my hand in a specific way that allows a person to apply pressure over the top and underneath of the bones in the hand that connect the knuckles to just before the wrist. By gripping a persons hand this way another can apply pressure easily in a painful way as well as make it difficult for the other person to take their hand away.

 

Now I am trained and skilled in several forms of Martial Arts and I can allow a person to grip my hand this way but if they try to crush my hand I can use my thumb and index finger on the hand they are trying to crush and pinch their NERVE in their Crushing Hand in a VERY painful manner.

 

I have done this a few times to some guy's who went over the line and really applied ridiculous crushing force to my hand. The moment I do this it surprises the Hell out of them as it is extremely painful as well as a numbing feeling lasts quite a while and I always get the..."WHY THE HELL DID YOU DO THAT FOR!!??"....from such people as if they didn't know they were crushing my hand! LOL!

 

As Bad as this behavior is...I would still prefer the pain to the absolutely DISGUSTING feeling when a person barely shakes your hand and presents their hand for you to shake...HANGING DOWN...as their fingers are pointed directly at the ground almost swinging as if the person had no bones past their wrist.

 

Then you go to shake it and they apply almost ZERO SQUEEZING FORCE and the only reason their hand stays connected to yours in what can barely be called a hand shake is your holding on to their hand and attempting to shake what feels like a clammy, cold and damp limp dead frog! LOL!

 

I know what you mean!

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Effeminate implies an over-empahsis of female characteristics. Macho implies the same for male characteristics.

The parallel construction required a pejorative applied to women as effeminate is applied to men.

 

Macho is not a pejorative, reliably, and it is almost always applied to men rather than women. So it doesn't work. And three days have gone by in which a term that would work has not been presented - as I said, a bit of thought seems to be required.

 

Which is actually a tangent, since even if it did work it wasn't used - the attempted parallel was "masculine", which isn't even in the ballpark. And that was what was revealing.

 

 

If you think there will EVER be a world where a Heterosexual Person will

not have some kind of Negative Thought when viewing two men French

Kissing or this Hetero Person having a Negative Feeling....JUST THINKING

ABOUT any kind of Homosexual Activity....then you are fooling yourself.

I think cultures where the sight of two men kissing does not disgust normal people to the degree of stepping in vomit are actually fairly common, both historically and right now (your subsequent modification to "French kissing" reveals, btw).

 

And I think in Papua New Guinea and nearby islands in which the normal upbringing of every man (at least until very recently) involved his younger self providing oral sex to several adult males in his community, are not populated by

this Hetero Person having a Negative Feeling....JUST THINKING ABOUT any kind of Homosexual Activity

Just a guess, but I really doubt they share your uncontrollable aversion and need to capitalize the matter. They might not even regard such activities as "homosexual", since after all everyone does them - it's not a special category of person.

 

Can we at least drop the notion that any of this is about evolutionary significance or even much relevant to it? We're down to talking about limp handshakes now (one of the limpest I ever received was from a pro boxer, protecting his hands. Not exaclty an effeminate guy) , geez.

Edited by overtone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The parallel construction required a pejorative applied to women as effeminate is applied to men.

 

Macho is not a pejorative, reliably, and it is almost always applied to men rather than women. So it doesn't work. And three days have gone by in which a term that would work has not been presented - as I said, a bit of thought seems to be required.

 

Which is actually a tangent, since even if it did work it wasn't used - the attempted parallel was "masculine", which isn't even in the ballpark. And that was what was revealing.

 

 

I think cultures where the sight of two men kissing does not disgust normal people to the degree of stepping in vomit are actually fairly common, both historically and right now (your subsequent modification to "French kissing" reveals, btw).

 

And I think in Papua New Guinea and nearby islands in which the normal upbringing of every man (at least until very recently) involved his younger self providing oral sex to several adult males in his community, are not populated by

Just a guess, but I really doubt they share your uncontrollable aversion and need to capitalize the matter. They might not even regard such activities as "homosexual", since after all everyone does them - it's not a special category of person.

 

Can we at least drop the notion that any of this is about evolutionary significance or even much relevant to it? We're down to talking about limp handshakes now (one of the limpest I ever received was from a pro boxer, protecting his hands. Not exaclty an effeminate guy) , geez.

 

 

You tend to talk about a number of EXCEPTION FROM THE RULES...as far as bring up a Tribe of people on an Island bordering the South Pacific and Indian Oceans that is Papua New Guinea.

 

Yet you don't bother to mention the close to 6 BILLION other people in the world who don't perform such sexual acts upon multiple other members of their community in such a manner.

 

I am really not certain WHY you are arguing this point as far as a Heterosexual Man being DISGUSTED by viewing two other men French Kissing? I mean...if we were to do a survey and ask other Heterosexual Men how they felt after viewing such men french kissing I am fairly certain we would get a very high percentage of Heterosexual Men replying that viewing that would either be viewed negatively or with disgust. I do not think we would find many heterosexual men saying they either view such activity in a Positive Light or Enjoy viewing such Homosexual activity.

 

I mean...WHAT EXACTLY IS YOUR ARGUMENT? Are you trying to say for such Heterosexual Men to respond negatively or with disgust that they are doing something wrong? Are you trying to say because a tribe of people in Papua Ne Guinea have men who perform Oral Sex on other men that it proves that Heterosexual Men who view Men French Kissing and are disgusted are wrong for doing so as no one in the aforementioned Island Population has issue with their men performing Oral Sex upon multiple Other Men? LOL!

 

Although there will always be a percentage of people not predisposed genetically to be Homosexual who engage in Homosexual Activity...Sexual Orientation and Sexuality in General on the majority is a direct result of GENETICS.

 

So are the RESPONSES felt by various people of various sexual orientation when viewing sexual acts or sexuality conducted between various people of differing sexual orientation than themselves.

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there will always be a percentage of people not predisposed genetically to be Homosexual who engage in Homosexual Activity...Sexual Orientation and Sexuality in General on the majority is a direct result of GENETICS.

No, you don't get to proclaim that without some evidence, in fact there are other schools of thought that say hormonal imbalances in the womb are a major cause of homosexuality.

 

So are the RESPONSES felt by various people of various sexual orientation when viewing sexual acts or sexuality conducted between various people of differing sexual orientation than themselves.

Again, you have made a positive assertion and by the rules you need to back this up by evidence not by simply asserting it as truth.

 

Any poll you might make with the general population is indeed biased by cultural demands and in our western world those demands are generally based in religion.

You keep making these assertions about what other heterosexual or homosexual people feel but you provide no evidence to back it up. In fact I really don't understand your position on this and why you are so emotional about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you don't get to proclaim that without some evidence, in fact there are other schools of thought that say hormonal imbalances in the womb are a major cause of homosexuality.

 

Again, you have made a positive assertion and by the rules you need to back this up by evidence not by simply asserting it as truth.

 

Any poll you might make with the general population is indeed biased by cultural demands and in our western world those demands are generally based in religion.

You keep making these assertions about what other heterosexual or homosexual people feel but you provide no evidence to back it up. In fact I really don't understand your position on this and why you are so emotional about it.

 

Such imbalances be they a direct result of a persons Genetic predisposition to have them or the introduction of Chemical elements to cause changes on a Genetic Level via mutation...is still Genetic in it's nature.

 

As far as to your second statement...can you provide examples that would detail otherwise?

 

As far as being...Emotional? LOL!

 

I would...an...answer that bu...bu...but I am too broken up after reading your assertion. LOL!

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such imbalances be they a direct result of a persons Genetic predisposition to have them or the introduction of Chemical elements to cause changes on a Genetic Level via mutation...is still Genetic in it's nature.

 

Is that how the introduced chemicals alter sexuality? By making epigenetic changes? Such is the only pathway for alterations to sexuality that I can think of, but I don't want to commit the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

 

SPLIT: Sexual Orientation and Sexuality in General on the majority is a direct result of GENETICS.

So are the RESPONSES felt by various people of various sexual orientation when viewing sexual acts or sexuality conducted between various people of differing sexual orientation than themselves.

 

MOONTAN: Again, you have made a positive assertion and by the rules you need to back this up by evidence not by simply asserting it as truth.

 

SPLIT: As far as to your second statement...can you provide examples that would detail otherwise?

 

Easier said than done. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you, Split.

Edited by Mondays Assignment: Die

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that how the introduced chemicals alter sexuality? By making epigenetic changes? Such is the only pathway for alterations to sexuality that I can think of, but I don't want to commit the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

 

 

Easier said than done. I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you.

 

It all comes down to three possibilities...of which two have very little logic.

 

1. Behavior towards another's sexual orientation is Genetic in it's nature.

 

2. Is a result of experience and culture.

 

3. Is a result of Biochemistry driven by outside chemical induction.

 

#2 and #3 are highly unlikely as being either sole reasons.

 

#1 and #2 are more likely as a combination greater in possibility than the combination of #1 and 3# or #2 and #3.

 

Even though experiences and culture can play a major role ones Genetic disposition will determine to what degree.

 

Split Infinity

 

Split Infinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "causative" probably misleads.

 

Presumably we have the same genetics operating In cultures that do not routinely produce homophobia, so what we have here seems to be a genetic variance in predisposition for a cultural feature - more like the variance we see in the predisposition to throwing a baseball than an evolutionarily significant factor in the presence of homosexuality itself.

 

We don't normally describe the obvious genetic variance in baseball throwing tendencies as a "causative contributor" to curveballs. There may be a predisposition, but genes don't cause people to throw curveballs. Look at the complications of such an approach - it is a fact easily measured, for example, that lefthandedness involves a genetic predisposition, and curveball throwing is strongly correlated with lefthandedness - do we conclude that the genes predisposing one to lefthandedness are causitive contributors to curveball throwing? Even if they are shown (as they well may be) to correpate with physiological features that make the actual throwing of a curveball more difficult, rather than less?

 

And the situation is even more complex in the case of disorders like homophobia. Just for example, if it turns out that a genetic predisposition toward homophobia involves exactly the same code varieties that predispose one toward homosexual attraction (which is quite possible from the known correlations), the extrapolation of that to evolutionary pressures would get pretty complicated, eh?

I agree that the word can be easily misinterpreted, but the word causative is reasonable if one specifies what the cause refers to (the occurrence/incidence (e.g. throw a baseball) or the outcome variance (e.g curvreball, under arm throw, over arm etc.).

 

The term "causative contributor" and predisposition overlap somewhat, perhaps entirely. If a predisposition (occurence or outcome variance) has a known genetic basis, then it is reasonable to say that genetics contributed to the cause of the particular outcome the predisposition relates to.

 

Coming back to homophobia now. On the basis of the evidence posted here it is reasonable to suggest that some individuals may have a genetic predisposition to hold a negative attitude towards homosexuals (homophobia). It is also reasonable to say that genetics is a causative contributor of a negative attitude (considered as a possible outcome!) toward homosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The term "causative contributor" and predisposition overlap somewhat,

- - - -

On the basis of the evidence posted

here it is reasonable to suggest that some individuals may have

a genetic predisposition to hold a negative attitude towards homosexuals

(homophobia). It is also reasonable to say that genetics is a causative

contributor of a negative attitude (considered as a

possible outcome!) toward homosexuals

In my opinion that will lead to immediate confusion, and various implilcations completely muddled will be read into it - such as the notion that such a genetic predisposition toward homophobia could be selected by the influence of homosexual behavior on the individual's reproductive success or personal survival in any direct or easily visible manner.

 

As we see, any genetic predisposition for homophobia would seem to be positively correlated with whatever the genetic predisposition is toward homosexuality itself, possibly even the exact same genetic code - homophobia seems to be at least partly a culturally inculcated reaction against the predisposition for as experienced by the predisposed. So what is that a genetic predisposition toward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • 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.