The Gay "Germ" Hypothesis

[DianaRose]

Also, in regards to the idea luc proposed. I understand the thinking, but at population level, it isn't something that is likely to be practical. How many gays would accept to marry women, especially if they truly have no attraction to women, or to remain celibate? Also, for those who choose celibacy, is it meant only refraining from sexual action with other men but allowing oneself to have a chaste relationship with another men? Or would it mean being completely single? If it is the later, again that would pose a problem because I think most people want some sort of companionship, especially as they get older. It's easier said than done for people to essentially get over their homosexuality.

In regards to homosexual promiscuity, obviously over the years the media/ society promoted sexual liberation and particularly targeted this specific group. And things such as Gay Pride and other manifestations openly promote licentiousness and debauchery. Additionally, every community as its own vices and it seems to me that in the LGBT community casual relationship are often normalised. Anyway, I wonder if the fact that men are generally more into sex than women could contribute to this issue of promiscuity. Also, it seems to me that for men, wanting a family, a wife and children, often acts as a stabilising factor. However, gay males for obvious reason wouldn't have that. I was thinking that as a result it would encourage them to hop from one hook-up to the other as there isn't any "endgame" (reproduction).

 

[Laura]

For a tribe to be genuinely cohesive, it seems it must encourage honesty and accept the diversity of its members as a means of expanding the tribes' collective experience and learning. Enforcing a false conformity may provide a superficial benefit of some kind, but is ultimately promotes embracing a false reality which is always detrimental.

Well, the Jews have done pretty well by being dishonest not only to each other, but to themselves, and abhorring diversity. In fact, it's the only tribe that has held together for about 2 K years.

 

[Cyre2067]

Both good points. I don't even know if I would call those views "traditionally prudish." From my perspective, it's exactly what Adaryn wrote:

Re: the aversion thing. Well, unless we're talking platonic love (which must be even rarer in homosexual circles than in heterosexual ones), the sexual practice itself is objectively brutal, repellent and unnatural, yes?

snip

Personally, I couldn't care less about other people's sexuality and what they do privately, so long as the free will of all involved parties is respected, and as long as I don't see it (doesn't matter if they're homo or hetero, I just don't want to see it or hear about it). What makes me cringe is the proselytism, propaganda and people flaunting their homo/bi/tri/whateversexuality in everybody's face.

How about that just being respect of a person's privacy?

Adaryn's post is riddled with some pretty naive sentiments on homosexuality. Particularly: 'the sexual practice itself is objectively brutal, repellent, and unnatural...' Concomitantly, this also demonstrates my point about 'prudishness' or inability to discuss human sexuality without resorting to dancing around the subject - whatever 'the practice' is can be named without fear:

Sodomy or anal sex, if that's what Adaryn was referring to, can be as brutal as the lovers want it to be - which is the same case for vaginal sex between men and women, or even oral sex between partners of any gender. The choice of the adjective 'objectively' suggests Adaryn thinks this alleged brutality is the Truth, which is odd because the end of the sentence asks the question, "yes?" as if a question still remained.

'The practice' can be intimate and soft, and generally speaking, it has to begin that way. There's nothing objective about it being brutal unless you really wanna stretch the definition of the word brutal. I'm a stickler for not stretching definitions:

Brutal
1: suitable to one who lacks intelligence, sensitivity, or compassion : befitting a brute: such as
a: CRUEL, COLD-BLOODEDa brutal attack
b: HARSH, SEVEREbrutal weather
c: unpleasantly accurate and incisivethe brutal truth
d: very bad or unpleasanta brutal mistake
e: grossly ruthless or unfeelinga brutal slander
2archaic : typical of beasts : ANIMALthee, Serpent … to me so friendly grown above the rest of brutal kind— John Milton

As far as repellant goes, again, a stretch. Sure, it's repellent to anyone who hasn't tried it and liked it, but if it was 'objectively repellant' than it wouldn't be a widespread practice among straight and gay peoples. That's another point, straight people participate in butt sex as well. As far as natural, what does that even mean when it comes to human sexuality? If I go with a strict 'occurring in nature' that's demonstrably false, as there are animals in nature that do it in the butt as well.

There is value to respecting privacy and having modesty, but the gay culture had to break that down in order to expose awareness of their existence and the difficulties faced. It's a radical divergence from a monogamous heterosexual culture of the 50s which dominated previously. Now, it's been hijacked and gone too far and the co-opting of the LGBT umbrella spectrum by predators/deviants is rampant and our representatives in media are very, very poor. This has been a pet-peeve of mine since Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and Rupaul has only made it worse: they've taken the worst, most superficial things about our culture and turned it into entertainment.

No wonder folks have negative opinions of homosexuality and would want to rationalize homophobia from an evolutionary perspective. If not a literal virus or pathogen - there is CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the social organism and the larger culture by predators/psychopaths jumping on the LGBTQIAK+ boat and using a tolerance of homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans people to shield themselves from honest critical thinkers.

I've ranted a bunch about 'trans kids' and 'drag kids' on my youtube channel... this shit drives me to rage. Putting small kids in front of RuPaul and cheering on drag behavior is like giving your kid a gay-mind virus. If you wanna focus on something brutal, repellent, and unnatural, it's brainwashing a kid by conditioning them into accepting the aberrant as the standard. That fits all 3 adjectives, imho.

 

[Laura]

Adaryn's post is riddled with some pretty naive sentiments on homosexuality. Particularly: 'the sexual practice itself is objectively brutal, repellent, and unnatural...' Concomitantly, this also demonstrates my point about 'prudishness' or inability to discuss human sexuality without resorting to dancing around the subject - whatever 'the practice' is can be named without fear:

Sodomy or anal sex, if that's what Adaryn was referring to, can be as brutal as the lovers want it to be - which is the same case for vaginal sex between men and women, or even oral sex between partners of any gender. The choice of the adjective 'objectively' suggests Adaryn thinks this alleged brutality is the Truth, which is odd because the end of the sentence asks the question, "yes?" as if a question still remained.

'The practice' can be intimate and soft, and generally speaking, it has to begin that way. There's nothing objective about it being brutal unless you really wanna stretch the definition of the word brutal. I'm a stickler for not stretching definitions:

I think that the objective point is that the anus is designed/made/functions as a means of expelling waste from the body; it was never designed/intended to be used sexually.

That's the biological fact.

That makes it unnatural and, for most human beings, repellent. Using a body part in a way that was never intended by Nature can be considered brutal as well no matter how much soap you use.

What is truly bizarre is that men who reject women, seek to emulate heterosexual intercourse utilizing a facsimile.

And, while I'm willing to sugar that over with "to each his own" and "there's no accounting for taste" and "what people do in private is their own business," perhaps you can understand why that fact is repellent to most people and being constantly reminded of it by overtly gay/homosexual/queer behavior is not the way to gain acceptance.

If you are gay/homosexual/queer and you want to be accepted, just freaking act like a normal human being who keeps his private life PRIVATE.

 

[luc]

If you are gay/homosexual/queer and you want to be accepted, just freaking act like a normal human being who keeps his private life PRIVATE.

...which, btw, goes for posting here about sexual practice as well. Cyre2067, this is precisely the problem: you call it "prudish" to "dance around the topic". Have you ever considered that people don't want to hear about such things, and don't want to see them spelled out like that as if it was nothing?? If gays have that careless attitude, confronting everyone with graphic language (which is along the same lines as having gay prides), is there any wonder people react badly? Prudish? I call it normal. And don't count on political correctness to save the day forever. It's your responsibility to practice external consideration and not shove all that gay stuff into everyone's faces, regardless of how "offended" you feel.

 

[Joe]

Sodomy or anal sex, if that's what Adaryn was referring to, can be as brutal as the lovers want it to be - which is the same case for vaginal sex between men and women

Well, there is the fairly well known fact that non-consensual sodomy is used against men as part of torture, with the specific understanding that it will humiliate and degrade them. You might say that the rape of a woman by a man is humiliating and degrading, but it is generally not done with that specific intention. So there's that.

As far as natural, what does that even mean when it comes to human sexuality?

Natural in this context means what nature intended for a creative end result.

And don't count on political correctness to save the day forever

Yeah, people need to take the long view of history. This cycle of oppression leading to over promotion of that which was oppressed because 'oppression', leading to another round of oppression (because of the over promotion), should really stop, in everyone's interest, but most particularly in the interest of those who are periodically oppressed in this vicious cycle.

 

[Adaryn]

I think that the objective point is that the anus is designed/made/functions as a means of expelling waste from the body; it was never designed/intended to be used sexually.

That's the biological fact.

That makes it unnatural and, for most human beings, repellent. Using a body part in a way that was never intended by Nature can be considered brutal as well no matter how much soap you use.

Yes, that's exatly what I meant. To be clear, there was no judgement or condemnation in my post, and calling me a prude who's dancing around the issue is a lazy argument. The fact is that sodomy (whether practiced in a homosexual or heterosexual context) is an unnatural practice, stricto sensu it's a perversion. Perversion: the act of diverting something from its true nature. If you really want to stretch it to its most extreme, some may even say that any sexual act that deviates from the primary purpose of sex (reproduction) is - again stricto senso - a perversion. Again, no judgement or condemnation here, no "oh my God, this is evil!". These are just the biological facts.

 

[Chu]

...which, btw, goes for posting here about sexual practice as well. Cyre2067, this is precisely the problem: you call it "prudish" to "dance around the topic". Have you ever considered that people don't want to hear about such things, and don't want to see them spelled out like that as if it was nothing?? If gays have that careless attitude, confronting everyone with graphic language (which is along the same lines as having gay prides), is there any wonder people react badly? Prudish? I call it normal. And don't count on political correctness to save the day forever. It's your responsibility to practice external consideration and not shove all that gay stuff into everyone's faces, regardless of how "offended" you feel.

Plus, Cyre2067 managed to give more details about anal sex than anyone else has done on this forum even about normal sex. Do you see us talking about that overtly? No. Why? You can call it prudish, but I think it's common sense. What two consenting adults do in private is their business. We aren't a sex therapy forum either... If an issue comes up, fine, but to try and "educate" others of how normal this or that practice is, and use narratives, is another story.

You wrote:

There is value to respecting privacy and having modesty

and yet, you took your time to defend the opposite. See a problem there?

In some ways, homosexual people are exactly like heterosexual people. In other ways--usually inconceivable to the heterosexual majority--homosexual people's experiences are vastly different from those heterosexual people who've grown up in a congruent, majority culture. I think we should accept and respect the existence of diversity, but not necessarily celebrate--or reflexively fear and condemn--it.

I'm not quite following your posts, JG. Everyone is a victim if they want to, and everyone experiences life differently from other people. Think of a child who was born with a deformity. It is NOT cool, and they cannot hide it. Homosexuals, on the contrary, CAN be very discrete about it. So if we're going to talk about "trauma", then we have to put things into perspective. Now imagine the deformed child forming a "militant minority" and expecting to enforce rules by which he or she is not only seen as normal, but also "evolutionary advantageous" or "cool", and forcing people into not having a natural reaction (aversion, pity, curiosity, etc.) when seeing their deformity. NOBODY here is saying that they should be condemned or feared. They can and VERY often are loved and accepted as good human beings (when they are). But that is not to say that all of a sudden people must be convinced that they have been "socially conditioned" to see a deformity as abnormal. I think it's stupid for people to beat around the bush when the topic of homosexuality comes up. It wouldn't be such a sensitive issue were it not for the propaganda and the "pushing". And it happens to be that it is members of the "oppressed minorities" which are creating (or being instrumentalized to create) MORE division when pretending to just defend their rights. They already have the rights!

 

[Laura]

Well, there is the fairly well known fact that non-consensual sodomy is used against men as part of torture, with the specific understanding that it will humiliate and degrade them. You might say that the rape of a woman by a man is humiliating and degrading, but it is generally not done with that specific intention. So there's that.

Not only that, but 99 times out of 100, if animals display "homosexual behavior", it isn't: it's dominance behavior. Plus, they aren't completing a sex act, just emulating it. Dogs don't have anal sex with other dogs. Nor do monkeys or whatever.

Yeah, people need to take the long view of history. This cycle of oppression leading to over promotion of that which was oppressed because 'oppression', leading to another round of oppression (because of the over promotion), should really stop, in everyone's interest, but most particularly in the interest of those who are periodically oppressed in this vicious cycle.

That is the one thing that worries me a LOT. I know how I feel about it and how LOTS of other people feel about it who would never say anything to, or in front of, a gay/homosexual/queer person because they DO care about their feelings. And how the MAJORITY of heterosexual people feel is, simply, aversion. That aversion amplifies up to revulsion under some circumstances. And with so many people trying like heck to suppress what is apparently a natural reaction for the sake of being politically correct, I'm afraid the day is going to come when they are pushed too far.

 

[Joe]

If you really want to stretch it to its most extreme

Pun intended?

 

[Adaryn]

Pun intended?

Or rather, pine extended (don't mind me, it's late)

 

[Z...]

Plus, Cyre2067 managed to give more details about anal sex than anyone else has done on this forum even about normal sex. Do you see us talking about that overtly? No. Why? You can call it prudish, but I think it's common sense. What two consenting adults do in private is their business. We aren't a sex therapy forum either... If an issue comes up, fine, but to try and "educate" others of how normal this or that practice is, and use narratives, is another story.

You wrote:


and yet, you took your time to defend the opposite. See a problem there?





I'm not quite following your posts, JG. Everyone is a victim if they want to, and everyone experiences life differently from other people. Think of a child who was born with a deformity. It is NOT cool, and they cannot hide it. Homosexuals, on the contrary, CAN be very discrete about it. So if we're going to talk about "trauma", then we have to put things into perspective. Now imagine the deformed child forming a "militant minority" and expecting to enforce rules by which he or she is not only seen as normal, but also "evolutionary advantageous" or "cool", and forcing people into not having a natural reaction (aversion, pity, curiosity, etc.) when seeing their deformity. NOBODY here is saying that they should be condemned or feared. They can and VERY often are loved and accepted as good human beings (when they are). But that is not to say that all of a sudden people must be convinced that they have been "socially conditioned" to see a deformity as abnormal. I think it's stupid for people to beat around the bush when the topic of homosexuality comes up. It wouldn't be such a sensitive issue were it not for the propaganda and the "pushing". And it happens to be that it is members of the "oppressed minorities" which are creating (or being instrumentalized to create) MORE division when pretending to just defend their rights. They already have the rights!

So Chu you are regarding attraction to same sex as a deformity?!
It’s not that I disagree with most of what you are saying - especially the bit where you are against imposing someone’s sexual preference as “evolutionary advantageous”, but why do you think same sex attraction is a deformity?
Perhaps you just used wrong parallel - well at least to me it sounds very wrong because I would have never thought attraction to same sex is deformity or psychological disorder. How you express your sexuality can be a mental disorder, and even a deformity without a doubt but this is not limited to same sex attraction.

 

[Laura]

So Chu you are regarding attraction to same sex as a deformity?!
It’s not that I disagree with most of what you are saying - especially the bit where you are against imposing someone’s sexual preference as “evolutionary advantageous”, but why do you think same sex attraction is a deformity?
Perhaps you just used wrong parallel - well at least to me it sounds very wrong because I would have never thought attraction to same sex is deformity or psychological disorder. How you express your sexuality can be a mental disorder, and even a deformity without a doubt but this is not limited to same sex attraction.

I think the reason Chu selected that example was because it was something externally displayed and that's the problem.

 

[Z...]

Well this discussion prompted me on a little "search" and there is indeed some evidence homosexuality may be linked to physical deformity. i remember reading some time ago there were similar findings in sheep, or rams more precisely but I had no clue this was found in men too...

ABSTRACT
The anterior hypothalamus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. The volumes of four cell groups in this region [interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 1, 2, 3, and 4] were measured in postmortem tissue from three subject groups: women, men who were presumed to be heterosexual, and homosexual men. No differences were found between the groups in the volumes of INAH 1, 2, or 4. As has been reported previously, INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. This finding indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate."

A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men | Science

Now whether this is "deformity" or variation in brain structure it is very hard to tell.

And to finally put gay animals argument to rest:

Only two species have been observed showing a same-sex preference for life, even when partners of the opposite sex are available. One is, of course, humans. The other is domestic sheep.
In flocks of sheep, up to 8% of the males prefer other males even when fertile females are around. In 1994, neuroscientists found that these males had slightly different brains to the rest. A part of their brain called the hypothalamus, which is known to control the release of sex hormones, was smaller in the homosexual males than in the heterosexual males.

That is in line with a much-discussed study by the neuroscientist Simon LeVay. In 1991, he described a similar difference in brain structure between gay and straight men.

Pretty good overview of homosexual behaviors in animals, It does fail to mention giraffes who are according to the book by some zoologist I read while ago most notorious queer animals when it comes to males and hyenas when it comes to females. The author is hang up on Darwinism but nevertheless presents some interesting theories on how homosexual behavior may be beneficial for the species.

Earth

Welcome to BBC Earth, the home for the latest stories about our planet, the challenges facing the natural world, and solutions that to make our lives more sustainable.

www.bbc.com

 

[Ant22]

Not only that, but 99 times out of 100, if animals display "homosexual behavior", it isn't: it's dominance behavior. Plus, they aren't completing a sex act, just emulating it. Dogs don't have anal sex with other dogs. Nor do monkeys or whatever.

A quote from The Caricature of Love comes to mind:

A report by G. V. Hamilton on the behavior of monkeys offers many points indicating that the homosexual role is adopted as a ruse or a placative measure by the weaker animal who feels threatened by an overwhelming competitor. By assuming the position of the female in the sexual act, he surrenders his place as a rival and avoids combat with a dominant bullying figure. Hamilton says: “Any male, mature or immature, was likely to assume the female position for copulation when attacked by a more powerful fellow of either sex if escape by flight was impossible....

“After the monkeys had fought their way through to some sort of tribal integration, the big fellow was admitted to the alley. All of them fled at his approach excepting the largest of the females. One recently weaned little male darted into an empty cage and crouched in a corner on the floor. The giant followed, leering at him as if about to attack. The little fellow squealed in terror and looked about for an avenue of escape. Finding none, he assumed the female position of copulation. His enemy now displayed only friendliness and mild sexual excitement, but the youngster ducked between his legs and escaped.... “

A monkey dashing to a ferocious attack upon a fellow would promptly cease to manifest hostility if the intended victim assumed the female position.... “Mature males would sometimes lure weaker males to them by assuming the female position, only to spring at the intended victim as soon as the homosexual bait brought the latter close enough to make escape impossible. Such behavior lacked all appearance of sexual motivation on the part of the luring male, who would move to attack before sexual contact occurred....

“No uncastrated sexually mature male was ever observed to assume the female position unless there was a defensive need of doing so, or an obvious intention of luring a timid enemy to non-sexual combat.”

As far as natural, what does that even mean when it comes to human sexuality?

Strange question, are you saying that there is no such thing as natural human sexuality? Across all of nature, sexual act normally aims to ensure survival of the species, so this pretty much defines natural: doing what it's designed to do.

Not every sexual expression is natural just becuase some people engage in it. Surely you'd agree that pedophilia, incest or corpoophilia are not normal expressions of human sexuality?