Is Homosexuality psycological or biological?

In response to well-cooked fetus' article that reads: Although both males and females produce the sex hormone testosterone, human production rates can differ by a factor as large as 100, making the effect of this hormone significantly more crucial to attain a balance in the male body than in the female ( 4 ). In the absence of testosterone, estrogen causes female development; in the presence of testosterone, testes will develop — regardless of genetic sex. It has been established ( 3 ) that at a certain prenatal period, the infiltration of superfluous testosterone has a masculinizing effect on female fetuses. An overactive adrenal gland (either in the mother or fetus) or the usage of anti-miscarriage drugs (which mimic testosterone) are presumed responsible for a testosterone excess.
This would be a very interesting and credible theory. However, you've neglected to emphasize one rather important caveat. These hormonal imbalances effect ONLY physical features of men and women. Where in your entire article do you present evidence for the effect of chemical hormones on the nature of sexual (emotional) attraction....Not in one section, even once. Rather you've speculated, "It is also possible that the amounts of hormones studied are not abnormal, but fall somewhere in the spectrum of human sexuality." I would agree, however, that, " It is crucial to consider that personality and behavior are more than simple chemical reactions." I would even assert that chemical reactions are but the resultant product of one's personality and behavior developed and shaped by the external world and experience. You are saying that the single-cell started as a full-grown chicken. That is illogical and irrational.
So, to reiterate my point... Your theory regarding prenatal over-androgenization or estrogenization is, politely, insubstantial and mirrors how scientists presently are scrambling to patch the hole that is the crumbling theory of "evolution," but that's another Q and A. We can't cover the inevitablity of a creator with ridiculous theories and speculations. Nor, can we run from his command to live holy and righteous lives. This can only be done through the blood of Jesus Christ. Yes, to use the most loaded of all words, He LOVES you, regardless of what you've done or how you live. You only have to accept Him and turn from sin...why not? Don't take scripture and science out of context and allow it to justify sin in your life. It will only be to your detriment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OMG..not another one of these jesus pushers....

This proves that you're clueless. Do you even know what a hormone is?? It effects WAAYYYYY more than physical features. Using words like 'superfluous' and 'caveat' does not justify your argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VernalEq
just in genral regard to your post, (i wont get personal about it)
i would ask where do you get your medical / bioChemistry knolledge from?
i would strongly recomend that you do some reading on hormones because i only had to read one sentence of your post to realise you have been seriousely miss informed.
this is a common thing and is often also called things like social myths.
there is a fairly consistant percentage of the animal kingdom that is homosexual.
the figure i have heard from different wildlife experts is around 10%
that figure is also around the same for humans genraly speaking, although humans can move into one place easyer some times if they are amougnst unfavorable neighbours.

one thing i find interesting is the seriouse lack of devision between sexual experimentation and defining of homosexuality.
i guess it all depends on how narrow minded and ignorant you are.

and why some people who seem to wish to consider sex to be something dirty nasty and evil, spend soo much time trying to stick their nose into other peoples sex lifes is quite self evident of seriouse low self esteem lack of personal growth and seriouse sexual disfunction. note i am not talking of voyerism as such.

there is such an abundence of variety in this word, variety is one of the true spices of life.
i find it sad and evolutionarily regresive that some seem to be soo hell-bent on making all things people included to be like a row of little cardboard boxs .. all the same, no personality, no independence, no artistic expresion, only conformity and fear and shame... what a sad life that must be.
lets hope people learn and grow a little faster

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VernalEq,

Perhaps your should re-read my article, as it talk of behavioral changes by exposure to sex hormones, including inducing homosexual behavior.

Also what reasoning do you have that the fact of evolution is "crumbling" For example genomic sequence mapping has proven relation of species, rather damming and resent proof to evolution. I have a crazy theory for you religion is a lie and mythology made up by people to try to explain things with a minimal understanding of logic. Tell me why should I believe in your god over say Budda, Vishnu, Zeus or Ra?

 

WellCooked Fetus writes, "Also what reasoning do you have that the fact of evolution is "crumbling" For example genomic sequence mapping has proven relation of species, rather damming and resent proof to evolution. I have a crazy theory for you religion is a lie and mythology made up by people to try to explain things with a minimal understanding of logic. Tell me why should I believe in your god over say Budda, Vishnu, Zeus or Ra?"

If we must move into another topic without finishing the last then very well. However, before going forward, why don't we gives some "closure" to our last discussion. Xerxes, I'll refrain from pontificating...it's so easy to become verbally superfluous I must admit (however, I didn't use the word "superfluous" in my response...I think you wanted to say I was being "superfluous"...thanks). Riple of Death (smirks)....I realize that "there is a fairly consistant percentage of the animal kingdom that is homosexual. The figure i have heard from different wildlife experts is around 10%." What scares me is that a large percentage of the animal kingdom is also cannabilistic. I believe the lack of division occurs between instinct and reason. Animals can't reason, humans can...and why? Because we've been made in the image of an intelligent, reasoning, and loving GOD that hoped for us to have dominion over this world. We failed...now, we have people like you all and even myself putting themselves at the level of an animal. Let's face it...we are not deer, we are not gorillas, we are not chimps. This brings us to my next point concerning evolution. Wellcookedfetus, I don't believe the theory of evolution is crumbling...I believe it has crumbled, but because you, like many including myself, are so wont (sorry Xerxes) to believe everything you read in a book or hear from a professor YOU are but the narrow-minded and ignorant. Read this, "For the judgement of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen. Being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE; Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became fools (Romans 1:18-22). I'm a "Jesus Pusher" because not only does He speak very clearly and correctly about our world, but He shows me that there is abolutely no other way this world could have come into existence without His power. These are what the theory of evolution is based upon: The stanley miller experiment, Darwin's Tree of Life, Haeckel's Embryos, the missing links. Have you really studied each one of these for yourself?? It only took 50 years to break down each of these theories. Stanley Miller used an atmosphere in his experiment that looked nothing like the atmosphere of early earth. He hoped to produce amino acids to back his theory that life could spontaneously arise although he himself was running the experiment. He (not chance) produced them, but in formaldehyde and cyanide. One leg down. Darwin's tree of life is still failing as fossil records fail to support his tree. His tree was more like a cancerous oak (due to the cambrian explosion) than a tree with gradual divergence of species. Another leg down. Haeckel did everything wrong. He only picked examples of embryos that fit his theory, he even faked those similarities. Third leg down. The missing links in the fossil record should speak for themselves. Before anyone replies with, "there is fossil evidence, you're just ignorant," please research that and you'll find what they call a fossil is merely half a jaw and a thigh bone in most cases left to the imagination of museum sculptors. Yet, many will say, "well, we know the theory is true, so let's use the theory to explain why the evidence doesn't fit." Refer to my Romans 1 above. Vishna, Zeus, and Ra did not come to this world to atone for the sins of sinful man through their own death on the cross. "For GOD (the Judeo-Christian God) so loved the world that he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life....This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. We all sin, but we all can be forgiven. Jesus didn't come into the world to condemn us but to give us LIFE. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our lord." Don't get me wrong....sex is great! But who defines sex, You or God? Don't get it confused.

 

VernalEq,
Do us all a favor and make muliple paragraphs, it makes it easier to read.

I already finished the last topic, read above.

Actually animals can reason, and most of all humans are animals, we have all the same emotions as animals, all the same instincts to. The only thing that separates use is that we are really smart, have thumbs, and advance language.

You do see the irony of this? You dam our trust in books and scientist, yet you don't see any reason to also disbelieve in holy-books and priest. They’re both the same thing, science though does have the advantage of logic, reasoning, evidence, proof. Science also lets you test its theories, religion does not, you can’t command angles and god to come down and prove your right, can you? That’s why it’s called faith: to believe in something without proof or even reason.

As a biochem student, yes. Didn't know they wore broken down though, in fact evidence for many of these has been gaining, not the reverse.

miller's experiment did not prove how life started that’s true, it only showed fundamental components of life could be produce pre-biotic. And it did produce amino acids. what came into question was evidence that earth may have had a enviorment that would not have support organic producing machanisum like that of miller's erxperimnet. Later evidence shows that amino acids could and are coming form space, and most of all are produced in space. Voiding the issue.
Even so this issue is outside of evolution as evolution only say that life evolves, it says nothing of how it started.

Only one out of 1 million animals and plants gets fossilized, thus the fossil record is not accurate or complete. Also genetics can emulate a perfect fossil record as all missing links can be circumnavigated by showing who evolved from who. For example humans came from apes, genetically proven.

Actually Haeckel did do a lot of fooling around, even so, it is true though that during embryonic growth humans (and other animals) do show features similar of earlier life forms. For example we do grow a tail, gills, yoke sac.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html

By the way I still don't understand your reasoning on why to not beleive in other gods.

 

I have submitted several posts to this forum which discuss the God Gametes theory. For those who have not read the earlier posts the God Gametes model does not argue for any particular religious concept but merely that “something must have kick started it.” It postulates the presence of a multiverse. The multiverse being hierarchal, parent universes above us and baby universes below. The God Gametes model then argues that our human consciousness is the male reproductive cell of a parent species on the next higher level of the multiverse.

While this concept may seem a little outlandish it is consistent with many aspects of life we know to be true. For example it provides a role for social sex (in particular homosexuality) which the traditional Darwinian model has difficulty explaining.

The following sections are taken from Chapter 6 of “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” which can be downloaded free from www.godgametes.com

God Gametes page 147

In the human species sexual activity is designed more as a contraceptive than for reproduction. Some animals produce litters and have a better than one-to-one ratio between copulations and offspring. But Robin Baker and Mark A. Bellis (Human Sperm Competition Copulation, masturbation and infidelity) in a report on a survey of 3,697 UK subjects with an estimated 2.5 million copulations that produced 800 children (3,200 copulations per child).4 Their research also shows that humans tend to copulate more in the post fertile stage of the menstrual cycle.

Sexual activity with a bias to the infertile stage of the menstrual cycle, sex between couples of the same gender, sexual activity when the female is pregnant, sexual crypsis that hides the fertile stage of the menstrual cycle, short life span of both female eggs and male sperm cells and sexual relationships formed between those either too young or too old to be fertile, tend to suggest that sexual activity has an important role to play that is unrelated to paternal support, sperm competition or the simple fertilisation of the female egg by the male sperm cell.


GG page 161

Homosexuality:

Homosexual behaviour is another non-reproductive form of sexual expression that cannot be explained by Darwinism. Desmond Morris suggests that a tendency towards homosexuality is an aberration most likely imprinted on an individual’s mind during adolescence. He suggests that a child exposed to powerful images vividly expressing their own gender might attribute a special significance to a certain type of sexual conduct.30 But it is difficult to believe that our most basic urge, our will to reproduce and a process on which our species depends for its survival, could be so easily derailed.

Many living creatures have developed complex patterns of bonding including homosexual relationships. Same-gender sexual liaisons have been observed in a diverse range of species including dragonfly, worms, birds and humans. Some insects encourage participation of other species when mating occurs and during these mating rituals it is common for males to attempt to mate with other males and for cross-species contact to take place. The traditional explanation for this seemingly pointless activity is that some insects become confused at the time of sexual ritual. But insects do not get confused when carrying out far more complex reproductive procedures.

Homosexual activity can hardly be explained away by confusion for there are many intelligent humans who spend their entire lives choosing same-sex partners and it is extremely unlikely they are confused about gender or have expectation that they will produce offspring.

Homosexuals seldom have children to inherit their genes and if natural selection were the sole determinant of our genetic composition, the gay gene would have been lost. We need to know why there is such a significant proportion of our population with a preference for same-gender lovemaking when in the entire history of our species not a single child has been produced this way.

Baker and Bellis recognise that some individuals have a powerful urge to engage sexually with their own kind. They report that homosexual stimulation in women has nearly twice the success rate at producing an orgasm as does cross-gender lovemaking.31 They note that males with a lifetime of exclusive homosexuality make up less than 1% of the population. They then argue that less than 1% is a figure that can be ignored and their justification for overlooking this statistic is that at least 1% of heterosexual couples will also fail to reproduce. More importantly, they argue that on average men who report homosexual activity inseminate just as many women and are as reproductively successful as males with a lifetime of exclusive heterosexual behaviour.32

God Gametes disagrees with the way they interpret their statistics. They isolate the 1% of population having a lifetime of exclusive homosexuality but then refer to the reproductive success of bisexuals. Homosexual activity needs to be assessed in terms of its total cost to reproductive success and this means all homosexual activity. The 1% of people having a lifetime of exclusive homosexual activity only consists of a small fraction of the total. We need to know the percentage of homosexual copulations (i.e. expressed as a percentage of total copulations). Or to put it another way we should be looking at the number of homosexual copulations, not the classification of people doing the copulating. In the ‘war’ being fought for reproductive survival, same-sex copulation is a bullet that can never hit its target. In a real war no sensible statistical analysis would simply count the number of guns. We would need to know:

· How many rounds the different types of gun can fire.
· How often they hit their target.

Any data not assessing these fundamental points is valueless.

Males have a higher sex drive than females33 and the incidence of homosexuality is 2 to 3 times higher in males than females.34 Given these trends it would be reasonable to conclude that homosexuals have on average a greater frequency of copulations than heterosexuals. Quoting numbers of individuals in these categories will almost certainly be an underestimate. To use the ‘war’ analogy again, giving percentages of homosexual individuals is like counting the number of guns without regard to rounds that different types of guns can fire.

If you were a General commanding 1% of the country’s troops you would not be happy to be told you have been allocated 1% of the guns. Your first question would be, “which guns?” The number or percentage is irrelevant information for you want to know how many rounds they can fire and how many times they can hit their target. Homosexuals are our specie’s reproductive guns with greatest firepower but in terms of reproductive success they never hit their target. Baker and Bellis have understated the significance of their reproductive loss by expressing them in terms of percentages.

The way they interpret statistics allows them to conclude that same-gender sexual activity does not have a negative impact on reproductive success. But there is a far more accurate way to analyse their data. Let us assume the overall level of sexual activity would remain the same if homosexuality did not exist. This of course is not an unreasonable suggestion if in fact sexuality is for the purpose of reproduction. All sexual activity would then be focused on opposite gender. If this were to happen, the reproductive success of our species would no doubt be significantly improved.

They also argue that homosexual activity has brought about a reproductive advantage by helping train and educate individuals to reproduce earlier. They recognise that most societies do not approve of boys and girls experimenting with sex. The argument here is that same-gender sexual experimentation will often confer an advantage to some when competing with others who, without experience, no doubt feel awkward when first making sexual advances to the opposite gender. But they have compared the reproductive success of individuals with homosexual experience to boys and girls with none. If they compared reproductive performance of boys and girls that had experimented with cross-gender relationships with those who had only engaged in homosexual experimentation, it is unlikely that same-gender sex-play would indicate a reproductive advantage.

There are other points made by Baker and Bellis equally baffling. They argue that same-gender experimentation is commonly practiced because of censure applied on sexual promiscuity of boys and girls but overlook the fact that sex between same-gender adolescents is even less socially acceptable. In other sections they recognise a higher incidence of disease, risk of physical damage and loss of paternity, closely associated with homosexuality.35 These are all factors that tend to offset any perceived reproductive benefit that an individual may gain from engaging in homosexual activity.

They report, “In nearly all human societies, some individuals at some time in their lives experience orgasm through seeking or allowing stimulation by an individual of same sex.” 36 They also state, “Genetic studies of male sexual orientation suggests strongly that individual predisposition to homosexual behaviour is genetically programmed.” 37 Most societies have between 4% and 100% of individuals engaging in homosexual activity at some stage in their lifetime. Given the significance of this, and conventional belief that important behavioural or genetic trends need be maintained by heredity, it is difficult to understand the survival of homosexuality. It is expressed in a way that renders itself infertile.

Survival of the genetic endowment of homosexuality is at variance with the principles of heredity. According to such principles even animal behaviours such as the tendency of some species to migrate for breeding, will eventually be lost if they are not supported by heredity.

In 200 million years since the evolution of the mammalian species38 it would have been impossible for any living creature in human lineage to make a generational transfer of genetic endowment of homosexuality. There does however need to be a recognition that it has survived despite being at odds with the laws of heredity.

God Gametes believes that successful reproduction requires interaction of individuals on the broadest possible basis, not just the exchange of male and female gametes. Some species have developed a reproductive system in which the chance of reproducing is not tied to a specific gender role. In gender-based animal species such as our own, an individual can only reproduce with members of the opposite sex. But there is an advantage to be gained if any individual of a species has the potential to mate with all others of that species. This provides the greatest possible mix of genotypes, an advantage many other species have exploited. God Gametes believes that EGPs (External Gene Pool) driving individual members of our species are not gender specific. Every individual has the potential to exchange bits of their external genetic endowment with all other members. Exchange of genetic information in the external gene pool is not limited to transfers between male and female.

Individuals with a lifelong preference for homosexual relationships will of course have many bisexual partners. Any preference for more adaptable body parts or change in the evolutionary direction of our species is first passed on to a same-sex lover then transferred to the opposite gender by their bisexual partners. As long as homosexuals have some partners who are bisexual, opportunities exist for regeneration of their genes.

Our reproductive system limits the transfer of DNA to cross-gender exchanges. Homosexuality has been retained by our species because it makes possible a broader exchange of genetic information. It facilitates the transfer of genes in our species’ external gene pool between all individuals regardless of gender.

This explains why all human societies have a significant proportion of their population with a preference for same-sex lovemaking and how genes that code for it are transferred from one generation to the next.

 

Quotes from “God Gametes and the Planet of the Butterfly Queen” continued.

GG page 168

Menstrual Synchrony:

Menstrual synchrony is when menstrual cycles tend to become more synchronised than expected by chance. For many years, women as diverse as nuns, students, sisters, prisoners, mothers and daughters have commented on the unexpected synchrony of their menstrual cycles. Baker and Bellis provide details on a number of studies that show menstrual synchrony are real phenomenon and not a physical response to some external environmental factor. Their study of 130 women in 30 different groups did not find an overall trend towards synchrony. What they did find was menstrual cycles of some groups desynchronising (i.e. different phases of their cycles becoming further separated than expected by chance) but cycles of other women synchronising.

They note that desynchrony is more common with women ovulating while synchrony tends to occur more frequently with anovulatory women.48 Research on humans and other mammals shows an increase in the number of anovulatory cycles in females with little or no contact with males. When females have increased contact with males they respond with an increase in ovulatory cycles. Baker and Bellis make the point that when women have renewed contact with males, the desynchrony that follows is of menstruation and not of ovulation. The phase of peak fertility thereby remains cryptic.49

To summarise, it would seem that females with regular male contact tend to desynchronise cycles and menstruate further apart than would be expected by chance. Those who live together without regular male contact synchronise their cycles and tend to menstruate at the same time. Both trends produce an increase in sexuality with little benefit in reproductive success.

When two or more women are in the company of a man there is likely to be a total abstinence of sex if both females are menstruating. If however females desynchronise menstrual cycles, this provides opportunity for the male to continue a sexual relationship with one. In theory this means there would always be one female receptive to him. Given that desynchrony of menstrual cycles does not mean desynchrony of ovulation it is unlikely that additional sexual activity will be focused on the time of peak fertility and no significant benefit in reproduction will be derived.

It is a well-established fact that same-sex couples living together without contact with the opposite gender will often form homosexual relationships. If then, women who live together synchronise menstrual cycles, there is a benefit to be gained in terms of sexual activity. For the benefit of this exercise we will assume firstly that even when many women live together, as in prisons, they will form pair bonds and there will be a reduction in sexual activity during menstruation. If therefore pair bonds have desynchronised menstrual cycles there will likely be an abstinence of sex for two of the four-week cycle. By synchronising their cycles however, they increase by 50% the time available for sexual activity. There is of course no benefit in terms of reproduction by increasing the time available for sexual contact between same-sex couples.

Both menstrual synchrony and desynchrony are in conformity with the God Gametes theory but neither can be satisfactorily explained in terms of the Darwinian paradigm. Another totally baffling aspect of the female menstrual cycle is its length of 29.5 days, exactly the same as the lunar cycle. There is some suggestion of an association here with menstruation being slightly more common during a full moon.50 A positive link between menstrual cycles and lunar cycles, if in fact there is one, is of course difficult to comprehend. There is however a possible explanation in terms of the God Gametes theory discussed in the following sub-section ‘Timing of Menstrual and Sleep Cycles’.


GG page 183

Other non-Material Forms of Communication

Homosexuality:

The other explanation for different hair patterns is related to the different sexual behaviour of men and women. Most observers acknowledge two different roles of sex, a reproductive function designed to facilitate fertilisation and social sex that often appears to be more concerned with preventing conception than assisting it.

An evolutionary process driven solely by forces of natural selection would have very quickly removed a preference for same-gender sex from the gene pool of our species and God Gametes believes that social sex (sex not designed to achieve fertilisation) is an important part of the reproductive process. Individuals making love are attempting to communicate to partners, genetic information they receive from the environment and from parent species via the external gene pool.

If we agree that the above has some probability, let us see if there are evolutionary adaptations to support it.

Physical adaptations are mostly gender neutral. Eyes for seeing, ears for hearing, noses for smelling etc, are common to males and females. We talked about male facial hair being gender specific, but most differences that have evolved between males and females are ones obviously relating to our different reproductive roles, men with their penis and external testes, women with their vagina and pendulous breasts. There are also behavioural differences with men more sexually active in both the number of heterosexual56 and homosexual57 partners they choose. God Gametes claims there are evolutionary adaptations evident in males that have resulted from homosexual behaviour and these have been made because hair has evolved as a means of passing information from one individual to another during lovemaking.

They can be identified as adaptations to homosexual lovemaking because of physical differences in male and female reproductive systems, the greater incidence of homosexuality evident in males and because different methods of lovemaking have meant that adaptations are different for men than for women.

Mouth and anus are frequently used in lovemaking between homosexual males and it is God Gametes theory that males have evolved hair around mouth and anus as an aid to information transfer during copulation.

Females have far less hair around mouth and anus because anal and oral sex is not their preferred lovemaking method.58

So the timing of growth of facial and anal hair of the male, like that of armpit and genitalia hair, is suggestive of a sex-related function.


Darwin could not explain homosexuality. Some have suggested that he did not address this issue because Victorian England would not have welcomed an open debate on this delicate subject. But modern day Darwinists with no prohibition on discussing sexuality still cannot explain it. If Darwin were able to he would have. He had the courage to take on the church so it is unlikely he would have avoided a confrontation with Victorian prudes. Darwin did not address the issue because it flies in the face of natural selection and his model cannot explain it.

It is difficult to ascribe same-gender sex an evolutionary function when it is totally non-reproductive. The most obvious point to be made here is that individuals with a preference for same-gender sex would have been selected against, for our species can only reproduce by crossing male and female gametes. According to this interpretation, individuals who persist in homosexual lovemaking have no means by which their genetic endowment can pass from one generation to the next.

Strongly bonded lovemaking limits the transfer of information to two individuals. Heterosexual activity restricts exchanges of information to cross-gender relationships. Homosexuality and bisexuality have been seen as favourable evolutionary adaptations because they facilitate the transfer of information between all individuals regardless of gender. It has been important for our species to identify a need for a new evolutionary direction and then to quickly produce offspring with the ability to adapt. Sexual activity that is not bonded to a single partner or confined to only one gender makes possible a more rapid response to environmental change. The ratio of homosexuals has therefore been maintained at about 10% of our species.

In this section we outlined a number of reasons why our reproductive system has generated a heightened level of sexuality. Sex is needed more for its contribution to evolutionary change than for helping our species reproduce. It is believed that sexual activity is involved in egg and sperm selection, their fertilisation, cell division and recombination and contributes to the development of the foetus during early stages of pregnancy. The level of social sex demonstrated by our species is not an environmental adaptation and could never have evolved to maximise our chances of reproduction.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes ms. spamer I will look at your site.

 

WellCookedFetus wrote:

>>> Yes ms. spamer I will look at your site. <<<​

My post is not spam. Spam is when unsolicited mail goes out to millions of addresses. This forum invites people to contribute their thoughts and that is what I have done. I merely give the address of my web site for those who are interested to read further. Given I allow my entire book to be downloaded free I can not see what is wrong with that.

 

Its Spam if you placing a link for you own profit or personal advertising.

 

WellCookedFetus wrote:

Its Spam if you placing a link for you own profit or personal advertising. ​

Why the personal attack? Why don’t you read the post and debate the subject of the post?

I have spent 10 years researching and writing my book. I did not have the good fortune to be funded by a University and was not even able to develop my concept as part of the course work for a Masters or PHD. It seems if you open your mouth and say that “there must have been something kick start it” there is no place for you in any course work on evolutionary biology. And now I have my book completed I can not find a publisher. Not that I expected to but it is extremely difficult promoting a book of my type. I find the best way to do it is by going on science forums where I target people who are interested in the subject.

So now I am spamming? Even if I allow my book to be downloaded free you tell me I should not be promoting it on this forum? Would you say the same thing if you agreed with my concept?

 

because I don't care. Your advertising your own crap and no matter how much research or PhDs you claim to have it does not make your case right. Yes you should not be promoting it on this forum, you should be spending your time finding a publisher or more reputable medium for your book. Wasting your time on a little internet forum says a lot about you and your book.

 

WellCookedFetus wrote:

>>> or more reputable medium for your book. Wasting your time on a little internet forum <<<​

So if you do not care then do not bother to give me advice. Some of the greatest writers (including Jane Austin and George Bernard Shaw) could not find a publisher and self published their work. Actually I think sciforums are a great medium and great forums. If you think they are a waist of time then why are you here?

 

why do you think I'm here, wasting my time of course!

Sorry but your book is not going to get very popular by advertising for it here, to small a audience and very scientifically minded. It better if you advertise it to a large and dumber audience.

 

I think I know the cause of homosexuality. But before I go on, I want your views on the following:
What do you think is the cause of heterosexuality?

 

I think I know the cause of homosexuality. But before I go on, I want your (everybody's) views on the following:
What do you think is the cause of heterosexuality?

 

No replies as expected. Where are all those wise guys that seem to know what causes homosexuality.

 

Heterosexuality is unnatural, abnormal and a disease

This is not rhetoric. Whether we look at our present day society, or the ancient world --- this is the resounding message that we get. Scientifically, biologically and morally.

Man, at least straight man was never ever meant to be heterosexual.

Defining Heterosexuality

Let's clearly define heterosexuality first. The western society conveniently plays with these words to suit their own anti-men's agenda. In common parlance it is often used to simply refer to sex or sexual desire between male and female. Heterosexuality, however, is not as simple as that, nor is sexual desire for women the ownership of heterosexuals. Heterosexuality in reality is an ideology, which embodies two things:
- exaggeration of sexual desire for women to a point that nature can't healthily sustain.
- Suppression of sexual desire for men, which is equally unhealthy.

Heterosexuality means exclusive and all encompassing sexual desire for women, and an inversion to male eroticism and bonding.

Defining Homosexuality

It is also important to define homosexuality clearly, since it is cunningly meant to cover two opposite ends of male spectrum --- the masculine and the feminine, which is practically not possible, but the western world has lived with this concoction for a long time.

Sex or sexual desire between males is also not the ownership of homosexuals. Homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to sexual attraction of a feminine/queer male (often referred to as gay) either for another feminine man or for a straight man (they are both different desires). Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality covers the sexual relationship or desire of a straight man for another straight man (or even for a feminine man).

Furthermore, neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality even remotely represents the sexual nature of straight men.

Sexual nature of straight men

Straight men, by nature, are driven to seek sex with women occasionally (about once each year like in the animals). They are meant to seek life-long committed relationship only with other men (mostly straight men). This is supported both by history and the animal life.

Most of the men including straight men who go around with the 'heterosexual' label are not really heterosexuals. They are just pretending.

The straight man's desire for another straight man is way different than a woman's desire for a straight man or a 'homosexual's' (feminine male) desire for a straight man. A straight man's desire for women is also very different from a feminine man's desire for women.

Animal sexuality

In none of the mammal species we know of is the male 'heterosexual'.

Which other mammal do you know where the male pairs off with a female for lifelong or even for a period greater than a week! Heterosexual mating takes place once a year, during the mating season and that too for a very short duration ranging from a few hours to a couple of days (depending on the species) after which the male goes back to his pack. Of course the discovery channel will not tell you what the males do the rest of the year, although recent discoveries have shown a lot of sexual committed bonding between males. So the guys that bang each other's heads for a fuck of the female go back to their male lovers after attending to their natural call --- fulfilling their duty, so to speak.

If mammals were indeed heterosexuals they would not live separately for such long periods when they can easily live together. They don't even have to live in male only or female only groups. They can also choose to live in heterosexual spaces like the modern, Christian West does (perhaps the sons of gods of the world couldn't reach them). Animals live according to their natural instincts, not on the basis of some lords or prophets commands.

The animal males choose a new female partner each year, whereas, in the few cases studied they tended to bond lifelong with other males (in one-to-one bonds), unless forced apart by death. Clearly the males do not have any sense of commitment or attachment with the females – a basic requirement of heterosexuality.

What's more in species like the elephants, the males only approach females when they are about 40 years old. That in a life span which is only about 60 years by which time the elephant is too old even to move around properly. Sex between males is only too well known amongst the elephants.

We must not forget that most cases of affection and sexual bonding between males in the wild are not reported by the scientists – a phenomenon which has only now started to be documented. Even if they wanted to, they are too biased and ill informed to really find it out.

The strongest bias is this stupid 'scientific' theory that they have that every single move and thought of the animal is (consciously or unconsciously) directed towards facilitating reproduction, especially if it's even remotely concerned with sexual bonding. So if there is sex between males, it has to fit into this 'overall' purpose. Of course they will only look for cases of sex, love between males neither exists in the animal world nor is it important.

Another bias is that scientists tend to consider only cases of anal intercourse in animals as 'homosexuality'. That's absolutely illogical (in fact trying to find 'homosexuality amongst animals is itself wrong and biased because it's a peculiarly human /western/Christian concept). Even amongst the humans straight men do not prefer intercourse when they have sex with another straight man. When men have sex with women or with 'homosexuals' they may only have intercourse because it's socially so constructed.


Human history

Almost all ancient tribal societies, only a couple of which now remain, had institutionalized sexual bonding between men and often gave it precedence over sex with women. In these societies, like in the animal world, sex between males and females happened periodically every year and was restricted to just sex – but only so much that procreation can occur. In fact in all the ancient traditions (there are still several that survive today in non-western societies) womanizing is considered a feminizing factor for men.

We don't need to recount what happened in Greece. Suffice it to say that whenever the society accorded male-male bonds its true place, they have marginalized male-female bonds, and societies have been forced to find means to compel men to copulate with women. It seems to be a perenial problem.

In medieval societies by which time, male-female marriages were already made compulsory (we are still far away from heterosexuality) and sex between men either flourished (in some societies) side by side under social acceptance if not institutionalization or (in other societies) it was accepted behind the scenes, not openly. But in either case, interaction between man and woman was restricted to just the act of sexual intercourse (which, I might add, in most societies did not involve taking off clothes, nor doing it with lights on) often once in every couple of months). Or to matters concering family (children, ration, etc.). In these societies the issue was 'procreation' and not satisfying women.

Also in both kinds of societies sex (not love) between a feminine male (homosexual) and a straight man was openly allowed.

This has been the case in most of the non-western world till recent times, before the advent of globalisation and cultural invasion by America which has begun a process of heterosexualisation of these societies.

Marriage is unnatural

A true man can never share his life with a woman (or even with a feminine male) without sacrificing his happiness. Even a relationship with them is heavy on him. This is something that only a person with enough femininity can afford. In fact the more masculine a man gets the lesser his attraction for women gets too.

The love and bonding that a straight man can give to another straight man, neither a woman nor a homosexual male can give to him. A feminine male (homosexual or heterosexual) is equally unlikely to understand a straight man than are women, and is not likely to be compatible with him. They both have the least understanding or appreciation of masculinity. All that they have is a sexual attraction which is transient. Women and Feminine males may like macho men for short term flings, but they soon get bored of it and then they want to change them.

Straight men too can at best have short flings with women and feminine males.

Interestingly, the same thing happens at the other end of the spectrum --- the more feminine a man gets the lesser his interest in women gets too.

You become that, which you love

Of course there are some men who are genuinely heterosexual in this world, i.e., genuinely want to share their life with a woman. But these are not the typical males. These true heterosexuals are harmless and enlightened creatures and are most likely the two-spirited people that the ancients once venerated. I.e. they have both the male and female spirits (masculinity and femininity) in them almost in equal proportion. This way you can say that they have 'hormonal balance'. They fall somewhere between the masculine males (straights) and feminine males (including non-homosexuals). These two-spirited people may not be too different from today's meterosexuals.

Women who really want to share life with a man really crave for this meterosexual man, not one of those macho or straight guys.

The height of heterosexuality is the ultimate two-spirited person – who is also considered to be the epitome of spirituality --- what the heterosexual society has ironically denigrated as 'transsexual' and 'hermaphrodite'. He is a person who is two-spirited from within as well as from the outside – he has male genitals but he feels he is a female – his love for women has turned him into a male-woman. Or he has the genitalia of both male and female as in the case of the hermaphrodite.

Incidentally, the height of femininity in males is also Transexuality (although it's not two spirited, only feminine spirited but signifying a unique form of positive energy nevertheless). The height of the masculine spirited (straight) man is macho -- a stage which traditionally insists on total abstinence from women. However, the term macho has been much maligned and distorted by the heterosexual society. The heterosexual version of 'macho' is selfish, cruel, mean, unfair and of course 'heterosexual'. The naturally macho man on the other hand was strong from inside, fair, respectful of others, caring, righteous and a true warrior. He was someone who is a true stickler for fair rules. And it does not need to be said that he took love with a man to its highest form, with total and exclusive devotion – like the ancient Greeks. The world has not seen such love eversince.

I'm reminded of an ancient myth, where god Zeus in anger divided his subjects– the male, female as well as the hermaphrodite gods -- into halves. He later relented and sent them to earth as humans, each one's goal in life being to reunite and bond with his/ her other half, in order to become complete again.

Thus the males started craving for a man (his other half), the female craved for another female and the hermaphrodite person who was divided into a man and a woman has since been looking for and courting 'heterosexual' bonds. We are all supposed to represent one of these.

God does not want man and woman to bond

If god wanted man and woman to live together he wouldn't put one on Venus and the other on mars. There is absolutely no understanding between them.

There is hardly any sexual compatibility between men and women. Ever since heterosexuality came into being so have innumerable big and small sexual dysfunctions --- problems that have arisen because of forcing men into heterosexuality --- into a sexual bond with women that nature cannot support. There'll hardly be a 'heterosexual' man today who does not face sexual problems even though he may be shy of seeking treatment.

Man and woman cannot satisfy each other in bed fully. They both have absolutely different sexual clocks and different patterns of orgasms and absolutely no natural understanding of how the other's body works.

Straight men are wary of being intimate with women beyond ejaculation. They do not like to cuddle women in bed. Of course women often complain that men turn the other way as soon as they shed their semen. The orgasm of the female or her sensuality or her femininity in itself does not interest men. It would if it was not forced on them beyond the natural limit.

And of course there is the adage that 'men want sex from women' while 'women want love'. Real men just can't dream of emotional intimacy with women --- it's a fact, and I'm sure, most women will not feel sorry because of it. They too (apart from a small minority – the equivalent of male two spirit heterosexuals), secretly, be better off living with their own with occasional sexual escapades with the opposite sex.

Surely, if nature had intended heterosexuality it would not be so dumb as to make it so painstakingly difficult.

Forcing Heterosexuality

If heterosexuality was indeed so natural, such extreme social maneuvering would not have been needed to keep it in place. I mean look at the way the entire society, each and every element of it is meant to promote 'heterosexuality' howsoever uncomfortable or unnatural these elements may seem. So much so that today even small children are taught about dating and made to understand in no uncertain terms that if they want to grow up 'straight' (which they better do!) they must be heterosexual. And to think that these messages go through the most innocent of channels – cartoons.

And if 'heterosexuality' was indeed natural it did not need to fear 'homosexuality' so much. There would have been no need for such an immense force to control it as is being used today. Of course in the first place there would have been no need to bring in god to restrain it. If male-male sexuality is talked about it is only of the homosexual variety (stereotyped as feminine guys looking for a fuck) so as to keep straight men restrained. And children must be absolutely kept out of it, because the only hope to keep the society heterosexual is to fill their minds with filth about sexual relationships between any kind of males. Because if they fail to do it in that tender age, they have no hope whatsoever.

Heterosexuality is an anti-male ideology

Heterosexuality makes men subservient to women. A heterosexual society judges a man's manhood by his ability to 'satisfy' women. This gives women an immense power and handle over men. While all women are aware of this power that they have over men (and not all are interested in using them) some sexually aggressive women (polite term for whores) use this power to sexually abuse and exploit men. Because, man will have to submit to a woman's demand for sex lest he be disqualified from being a man. Thus 'heterosexuality' has made men vulnerable to unimaginable sexual abuse. Heterosexuality has created a society where the 'woman' has been granted the power to grant manhood to a man, and it no longer flows from within a man and from being with men.

However, this is good news for the weak two-spirited 'heterosexual' (not all heterosexuals need this cheap power). These men not only gladly submit themselves before women, they want to make the entire male species subservient to them. These men can hardly feel for the male race or masculinity because all they can think about is women and femininity and how to serve them.

Subsequently, a heterosexual society is over sensitive to the issues of women, but is impervious, often hostile to the needs of men.

These weak heterosexuals are the real eunuchs (non-men). They are the betrayer of the male population. They speak for women. They should not call themselves 'men'. They sell out the male race to the women and happily become their slaves.

Conclusion:

Thus it can be forcefully said that heterosexuality in the form that is enforced in westernized societies – as masculine and majoritarian, is unnatural, abnormal and gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social and spiritual problems both in men, women and the two-spirited people.

At the same time, the whole concept of homosexuality is also unnatural and abnormal in its present form. In fact the very validity of the concept of sexual orientation is questionable, but that is quite another matter.

No where in the mammalian world does the male partake in the raising of children. The birds do, and probably that is +why they're heterosexual. But not humans. Children are nice to raise, and men awe women for the power of procreation that they have, but heterosexuality is too heavy a price to pay for it. After all, women cannot make children without men.


Coming up…… Heterosexuality is a disease!

 

'Heterosexuality' the disease
Heterosexuality is a disease which has serious repercussions – for men the most, but also for women and the third gender (including the heterosexuals). Heterosexuality gives rise to a number of physical, emotional, mental, social, sexual and spiritual problems in people, especially straight men.

The progression of the disease

Heterosexuality is the most advanced form of a disease the roots of which go back long long ago in the history. At that time it was so harmful.

The reason earlier societies first started institutionalsing male-female sex as 'marriage' was to ensure the continuance or the political dominance of their communities through a steady increase in population. The world then was a big place and could sustain many more humans than were there at that time.

As communities migrated from one place to another (e.g. the Indo-Aryans) this need to increase in numbers fast would have resulted, for the first time, in attempts to control sex between men – to further limit male energy to reproduction.

Then came Christianity and Islam – the two later religions that openly sought religious hegemony and dominance of the world. They promptly secured an order from their respective gods in order to make sex between men a sin and a crime. These were the middle stages of the disease.

The western society developed this disease to its present form "Heterosexuality', to suit the modern, 'scientific' times.

The epidemiology of Heterosexuality

Heterosexuality, in its full blown form was till recently only present in the western world, with the U.S. experiencing its most advanced stage.

The disease was however present in its crude forms in most of the civilized world for about the past 2500 years (in some cases even earlier).

With globalisation, the US through its wealth and technological power has been bombarding the rest of the world with the full blown 'heterosexual' virus.

Some of the symptoms of Heterosexuality

The symptoms of the advanced stage of the disease include the 'killing' of all male only spaces/ customs in the society which are replaced with mixed-sex spaces/ customs.

Another symptom is the incessant 'promotion', enforcement and glorification of male-female sex. Which is accompanied by silencing the voices of male-male love or its denigration.

A special symptom of a man coming from a society inflicted with heterosexuality is a strange set of reactions which include turning pink with embarrassment and cringing, at even the thought of holding another man\s hand or being too near him, especially if in public.

Some of the effects of heterosexuality

Heterosexuality makes human life miserable. It also adversely affects other species and the mother earth. Overpopulation is one of the severest effects of the disease. The world is already ready to burst with humans spreading like insects.

Of course nature gave just enough attraction towards female to the masculine male that can support the nature's pace of reproduction. Had heterosexuality been natural there would not be any use for condoms or for vasectomy or for those hazardous pills with severe side effects --- all unnatural things. Surely these are the by-products of an unnatural heterosexual society. Like innumerable others side effects.
It's ironical. Heterosexuality was created in order to force the human population to grow much faster than their natural pace.

Today, when population itself has become a fatal problem, threatening to kill not only the human population, but the earth itself, efforts are being made to rid heterosexuality of 'procreation'. Considering the individual and social costs of maintaining an unnatural 'heterosexual' order, one wonders of its use, when it has become inimical to the basic purpose of its creation. Heterosexuality indeed has become an end in itself.

When straight men are forced to be heterosexuals, they are forced to relinquish their masculinity and since femininity is not an option (because it is so devalued and because it does not come naturally to straight men) they become hollow and diseased from within, dependant on pretentious masculinity – the heterosexual brand of fake masculinity described in the earlier article.

Violence against women is also a negative fall out of forcing (explicitly or implicitly) men into heterosexual relationships.

And of course there are those innumerable sexual diseases that inflict men reeling under heterosexuality ----- from pre-mature ejaculation to erectile dysfunctions. Satisfying women is a goal that keeps eluding men. Perhaps they should learn from those meterosexuals, sorry heterosexuals.