all of this assumes that homosexuality is a heredity trait passed through genes.
There is much evidence now that suggests it may be developmental, and a reaction to certain horomones (or the mother's immune system, i dont remember) in the womb.
if this is the case, homosexuality might be seen then as a consequence to some other previous evolutionary adaptation (ie, immune system attacks "foreign" bodies, considers the baby boy foreign).
I guess this is more related to Sym and KidRock rather than the OP
Originally posted by inimalist
all of this assumes that homosexuality is a heredity trait passed through genes.There is much evidence now that suggests it may be developmental, and a reaction to certain horomones (or the mother's immune system, i dont remember) in the womb.
if this is the case, homosexuality might be seen then as a consequence to some other previous evolutionary adaptation (ie, immune system attacks "foreign" bodies, considers the baby boy foreign).
I guess this is more related to Sym and KidRock rather than the OP
Which makes more sense [for the now], since the "gay gene" has yet to be found.
Either way, the religious crowd won't like it either, as it stills shows that gay people are homosexual due to influences beyond their control, ie a man didn't one day wake up one day and willfully chose to love the cock.
Originally posted by Robtard
Which makes more sense [for the now], since the "gay gene" has yet to be found.
very few things, especially when dealing with behaviour, are the result of a single gene. Stuff as complex as sexual preference is almost certainly not controlled by a "gene" or "genes", but patterns of genetic expression.
In the hormone theory, there would still be some sort of selection process against having homosexual children, but it would be far less than if it were in the genes specifically. A gay gene can be selected against very easily, an expression of hormones/genes/environment that could potentially be recreated in any womb (not just one with specific genes in the mother) would be much more difficult, and probably would need something more "detrimental" [used biologically, indicating that they would consume resources with less probability of passing on their genes] than homosexuality to cause such a selection.
Originally posted by Robtard
Either way, the religious crowd won't like it either, as it stills shows that gay people are homosexual due to influences beyond their control, ie a man didn't one day wake up one day and willfully chose to love the cock.
**** the religious crowd
thats something I'd like to select against
I have read in the past about how men enjoy lesbian porn and women also do also, but the idea that men prefer lesbianism is, I think, inaccurate and not gonna be proved any time soon.
I think that it's quite fair to try to understand such a thing through the scope of evolutionary psych. I mean, it's a kind of psychology, and psych is indeed man's pursuit of knowledge in terms of how we work. Is it right? well... that's a much deeper issue which I do not think applies here.
Ok more to the subject. at hand! I feel that, as expressed earlier, it seems that there would (as with most things we want) be more than one reason for this 'obsession (for lack of a better term)'
Here are some that make sense to me, assuming that man's main goal in life is to pass on his genetics.
1. More = better. Porn itself is used by many as a tool for fantasy. More women just means more chance to pass on the little swimmers.
2. More men = more competition. While it can be good for guys to have a dude in the scene, perhaps to allow for superior fantasy, it also means, psychologically more men present, which means more competition for the woman. Some guys don't mind, but others don't like that, so having a woman replace the man is a good thing.
3. Maybe it's a control thing. Having women do what we want them to do makes us feel like we are in control. If there was only one lesbo video out there, no one would give a damn. If there was only one 'move' girls could do, it would suck, obviously. Thats why a lot of guys don't watch lesbian stuff or seek out girls who like girls: just not enough commands can be issued (this is a bit of a stretch, I know) Also, I figure that girl/girl seems more female (duh) to guys, and that means more potential for the dude to be in charge, so that excites the guy. Guys love to be in charge, and having Bruce (or any other guy...) may threaten that.
I'm sure there's a plethora of other reasons, and I'll see if I can think up more later.
The arguement that fat chicks going at it doesn't arouse guys therefore lesbian stuff is dumb is... dumb. By that logic, you would be down to watch a guy bang a fat girl, and that would be great fun! No! Porn is fantasy. It's a way of tricking ourselves into feeling like we are involved in sex in order to get sexual release, so of course we're gonna want the most attractive characters. By my reasoning, porn guys aren't always the most... lovely looking fellows is just a testiment to that idea: guys want to be able to, on some level, replace the guy involved, thus: ugly man. We feel superior to him! His cock is large for the following reason: The woman is better stimulated, meaning she enjoys it more meaning we have done a better job 🙂 Hope all that makes sense and someone actually reads all that...
Originally posted by Akid
1. More = better. Porn itself is used by many as a tool for fantasy. More women just means more chance to pass on the little swimmers.
That suggests either a rape fantasy (which are surprisingly common) or that men in fact want bi-sexuals rather than lesbians.
Originally posted by Akid
2. More men = more competition. While it can be good for guys to have a dude in the scene, perhaps to allow for superior fantasy, it also means, psychologically more men present, which means more competition for the woman. Some guys don't mind, but others don't like that, so having a woman replace the man is a good thing.
I recall a study that suggested men are more pumped up by the presence of a man in the scene. They researchers suggested this was due to the reflex to compete increasing testosterone, thus increasing sex drive.
Personally I just don't like genitals (from either sex).
Originally posted by Akid
3. Maybe it's a control thing. Having women do what we want them to do makes us feel like we are in control. If there was only one lesbo video out there, no one would give a damn. If there was only one 'move' girls could do, it would suck, obviously. Thats why a lot of guys don't watch lesbian stuff or seek out girls who like girls: just not enough commands can be issued (this is a bit of a stretch, I know) Also, I figure that girl/girl seems more female (duh) to guys, and that means more potential for the dude to be in charge, so that excites the guy. Guys love to be in charge, and having Bruce (or any other guy...) may threaten that.
Of course this also suggests that men want bi-sexuals over lesbians.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That suggests either a rape fantasy (which are surprisingly common) or that men in fact want bi-sexuals rather than lesbians.I recall a study that suggested men are more pumped up by the presence of a man in the scene. They researchers suggested this was due to the reflex to compete increasing testosterone, thus increasing sex drive.
Personally I just don't like genitals (from either sex).
Of course this also suggests that men want bi-sexuals over lesbians.
(I don't know how to do the sexy multi-response thing)
I think you make an excellent point: Men don't want lesbians, they want bisexuals. Of course! I think, logically, that is a very important thing: Men do not enjoy lesbian porn because 'ya! Women getting off on each other!' It may seem that way, but it's more likely to be rooted in the man's own personal sexuality. He wants to be involved. It's more like a pretend threesome than anything, I'd say.
Also, the rape fantasy thing may be a good point. It's probably right, too. Did you know that rape fantasy is the most common fantasy among women? Wierd to a lot of guys, but less wierd when you consider that women are, by nature, submissive (generally, and this is deep psychology. I'm not saying women can't do stuff for themselves or anything like that) Well, men are the opposite: they like being in control. Men dream to be leaders, the dream to win, the dream to be in charge. A rape fantasy, really, I think, is an extreme version of that. Seems crazy, but think about different cultures: men are in charge. In many cultures, women are literally sold (I don't know if that still happens...) So a rape fantasy is a kind of thing that most guys wouldn't even recongize in themselves because it's just too taboo.
I think it's important to recognize that every guy is different; therefore, every guy's reason for their sexual preferences will vary accordingly. I, for example, have, because of stuff in my life, am very muted in terms of my aggression, and am naturally not an aggresive guy. By the logic I outlined before, it makes sense that I prefer 'lesbian' porn, which I do. I don't like other guys in general. The study about guys prefering other guys in porn seems to make sense, and it's a study, so as much as I'd love to just say it's wrong, I won't. Instead I'll say that it can't cover all men, that studies do tend to be scewed, and that of course loads of men prefer hetero porn, or else it would all be straight, wouldn't it? It's all about whom. I figure that most guys (I have no way of knowing this statistically) watch both kinds of porn. I only do lesbo, if I do at all. I'm willing to bet that if you ask any guy who's less 'manly' (google what makes a guy manly if you want) he will say that he prefers lesbian. That's not scientific, it just makes sense to me based on the science I know.