I disagree. I think it would be best if you stayed. That was a really thoughtful and well-written post.
2 Likes
Could you explain to me what she was trying to convey? I respect your opinion and you are able to write very straight to the point, so please enlighten me.
Iâve read in her post above that she even says what I said is happening and true:
Her only problem apparently was me bringing it up and that was in response to someone else wrote âDonât take the advice when you are dating a Cuban, black, âŠ. Womanâ.
I brought it up simply because it fit well there and Iâve just seen it a few days ago the âhe canât handle a real woman!â, so it was fresh in my mind. I donât see the issue. If black women stop acting the stereotype right now, which is of complete voluntary choice, there wonât be a stereotype in a few months anymore. Instead they are going to social media in droves and acting that way and saying that stuff. And no, no other race engages in exactly this behavior. So it pertained very well to exactly this.
So I understand that she just got triggered, because âblack womenâ was used in an unflattering context.
Are we to the point of only saying billionaires are a good metric of whose poor or not?
I think the cart has jumped the horse here.
1 Like
I only consider trillionaires wealthy; because if youâre not first, youâre last.
2 Likes
Again, thanks for sending over all of those articles. One potential issue that I see arising with this sort of research is that of cause vs. effect. Taking the fourth article you sent as an example, the two ways one could interpret it are:
- People who are sexually abused are more likely to become gay (sexual abuse as the cause)
- Gay people are more likely to end up being sexually abused (sexual abuse as the effect)
From what Iâve seen personally (mind you, Iâve never been sexually abused,) the second option is pretty logical. Someone closeted is blocked from the typical route towards sex (socialization, dating, etc.) and their alternatives (internet hookups, most commonly nowadays) are far less safe. I personally know two people to whom this has happened - one of them was a minor who ended up getting raped.
Another potential issue is that of repression vs. openness. A limiting factor for all of this research is that methods of defining someoneâs sexuality are limited to asking them about their orientation/sexual partners. A gay person living a straight life would not be counted as gay. This mostly becomes an issue in interpreting the significance of the third articleâs, where claims like âpersons born in the capital area were significantly less likely to marry heterosexually, but more likely to marry homosexually, than their rural-born peersâ are made. Does the capital actually have a greater proportion of gay people, or are those living elsewhere pushed into leading heteronormative lives at a greater rate? I know nothing about the social climate of Denmark, but if a town in the Southern rural US were to produce very few outwardly gay people, it would warrant a raised eyebrow.
With those exceptions aside, though, most of what youâve shown here does seem to support the point youâre making. I canât really think of a non-causal explanation for the divorce statistic, for example, unless we go so far as to say that the divorces are because of the gay kid, which sounds pretty awful
Complaints about statistical limitations aside (is this what you were getting at with the idea that I may âdismiss all of it as just coloration?â) I concede that nurture seems to plays a role. I donât know nearly enough about the whole topic to make any sort of claim regarding its relative importance with nature.
Moving on to your hypothetical - I would not be in support of taking such an action, or even making it available. To do either of these things would suggest that being gay is some sort of problem/ailment, and that getting rid of it would constitute a âcureâ or âfix.â I also think itâs a massive invasion of the babyâs autonomy (which is something I hold in high regard: Iâm pro-life, anti-circumcision, etc.) I wouldnât have wanted such a procedure performed upon myself, either.
2 Likes
Well thank you. I definitely donât mind expanding on things and honing it in if you yourself have questions. My whole thing was the perpetuation of it. Why even liken it to that? Thatâs an immature woman issue not âlike aâ black woman issue. Iâm well aware these things exist. I know the stereotypes exist, I know itâs definitely a socio-cultural issue that gets fixed on an individual level. Spoken from a black woman. And people have used the word âtriggerâ so much that they think it excuses pretentiousness. Iâm saying, as much as itâs not okay for me to make any likening of a stereotype held by any other ethnicity of people, itâs still not okay for other people to liken stereotypes about black people to fit their narratives. The majority here on the forums isnât black folks, and itâs definitely not women. So of course when someone points out issues with it being of either of the two groups, or just makes note of it not being something that was needed to be said without fail thereâs always those individuals who say or say something similar to âI see [insert number of black people] doing this, this, and that so whatâs the problem?â Or âI see [insert number of women] doing this and thatâŠâ Not sure what I could liken that to as far as like fallacies go, but you get it.
I do appreciate the kind words though two jars. I mean if youâre ever up for discussion of things like this please feel free to hit me up in my log, orâŠ.I could make a thread about it, but I feel like thatâs gonna end up in a huge dumpster fire of a thread.
1 Like
I wrote correlation (I checked 
), but yes. As you said doing âclinicalâ studies would be unethical. I think the evidence is good enough to show that nurture plays a role.
I think asking someone in a private setting, where they are anonymized afterwards, is the best you can get here.
I understand but disagree. If it would be shown that itâs some sort of hormonal change that produces the phenomenon, then I would regard it as a form of psychological disease that prevents one from having children of oneâs own, ultimately. Since I believe having children is one of the most fulfilling things in life and the prime imperative of life, I believe it would be unethical not to cure it, because it is known that gay people endure greater psychological stress while living a heterosexual life, making it again, a psychological disease. Thatâs obviously a hypothetical but I would not want to be gay, I actually think I would become deeply depressed if I was, not because of oppression but because I would have to decide between acting it out or marrying and having children despite it. I actually had these thoughts during puberty decades ago, so this is not something I thought up after the fact, but also during development. I did not want to become gay (back then I thought it was like catching a cold 
which as weâve established, it isnât).
I have to give you your props. This is indeed a very hostile environment and Iâm even bringing up hypotheticals which are worse than reality and you still answer them rationally and engage with me. Thank you.
For the record, I have nothing against gay people at all. Iâm actually treating my gay colleagues and people I know very respectfully and like everyone else, I joke with them and work productively with them. I donât like the âpropagation of alternative sexualitiesâ but I donât have any bad feelings towards you. Iâm glad we can have this discussion. If I would utter these thoughts to my gay colleagues, I would likely get me fired. (Actually, my problem is mostly with weak and unmanly men who donât want to take up responsibility. Thatâs why I also like the manly gay men I know, they are gay, but they are not weak or feminine. Thatâs another reason why I think gender ideology is bad for society, it produces manly women and weak men.)
Since Iâm having the chance right now to talk very openly and rationally to you, let me ask you something.
What are your thoughts on the LGBT⊠community? Do you think being gay and being trans is comparable? Do you think being trans should be advertised to children?
Do you think man and woman exist as biological categories (probably, since you are gay), but that a woman can actually be a man?
Do you think gender is only a social construct but simultaneously hold the thought that we have to transition 14 year olds who feel âqueerâ (my opinion quickly inserted: I think transitioning young children who are different is the same as trying to cure gay people, since we know that the very large majority of them grow either out of it or become gay. So for me it is actually a form of fishing out gay people and making them trans)?
Do you think there are tomboys who just become feminine women and go through a phase or are all of these truly men?
1 Like
Many people including Sigmund Freud (the only name I recall of the top of my head) had the theory of all humans being bisexual by nature and homosexuality being a âvariation of sexual functionâ. From there I just went down the wormhole so to speak of people who studied homosexuality and were influenced by Freud (obvious confirmation bias but I found the theory interesting so sought more on it).
The main issue for me in respect to it being nature/ something that could be changed with gene therapy is that I would struggle to see how the âhomosexual geneâ did not die out during human evolution. (But thatâs another discussion completely)
That was a main argument of the nurture side of the debate in science. Apparently the sisters of homosexual men procreate in significantly higher numbers and therefore spread on the genes.
I find the finding kind of odd, but thatâs I think the current opinion of some scientists about it.
2 Likes
Does that mean that the homosexual gene theory applies only to homosexual men? Or are the brothers of lesbians also super busy?
The real doubt I have about that theory is that historically most women who reached sexual maturity and were healthy and fertile had lots of children. The idea of women choosing not to have children (or choosing to have fewer children) is mostly a recent occurrence of the last hundred years. So how would the sisters of homosexual men have even more children? Women were generally limited by their own health and fertility (pregnancy and childbirth are hard and dangerous). Homosexual brothers wouldnât change that unless the gene also somehow makes female carriers of the gene more fertile or healthier. I suppose that is possible, but it feels like a stretch.
2 Likes
Combination of high infant mortality rates and lack of contraception.
I think we are pretty much asexual until puberty. At least in regards to sexual urges / attraction.
Some of the stuff around hormones in the womb is pretty interesting to me. I think what @Silyak says here:
Is actually true. The mother of the lesbian on average produced more androgens (Test / DHT) than a mother of a non-lesbian. She probably also produced more androgens for the brother of the lesbian. More androgens in the womb for a male child is correlated to promiscuous behavior later. There is some evidence that those more masculine men do better with women (probably a higher libido), unless they end up autistic (which is correlated with more of androgens in the womb).
The sisters of the gay men, on average are exposed to more estrogen in the womb, which for women seems to be correlated to a bit more promiscuous behavior.
I donât think this is true. I know from experience for example that all the girls in elementary school and all us boys had a crush. Definitely felt attracted to women before I hit puberty.
I guess thatâs what I get for trying to write all of these responses on a phone keyboard, haha. Iâm on agreement on your last point there.
Yeah, I donât think thereâs much of a better method either. Stuff like this makes it a very hard field to study/measure, along with the whole âsexuality is an imprecise spectrumâ argument.
I disagree with your premise here, but your conclusion/response to the hypothetical are logical extensions of it.
First of all, I donât really think there is much of a âprime imperative of lifeâ (triple-checked that I didnât misquote your that time, haha) on a philosophical level. Iâve always taken more of a stance akin to âthe meaning of life is to find your own meaning.â For some people, of course, this will ultimately end up being their children. Good for them; good parents are obviously necessary to a successful society.
But on a different note, as I said earlier, being gay dosenât keep people from having children. It prevents them from going down the typical path of doing so - impregnating a woman/being impregnated - but alternative routes exist. Even if you do think that having children is the âprime imperative,â it isnât being mutually exclusive with being gay. That is, unless what youâre trying to say with âhaving children is [âŠ] the prime imperative of lifeâ is more along the lines of âimpregnating a woman you are in a heterosexual relationship with, and thus having children, is the prime directive of life,â which I would disagree with on a few levels.
Me too. I enjoy understanding the perspectives of people who disagree with me, and Iâm glad you feel as if youâre also getting something out of this.
Sort of hard to say that I explicitly disagree with the movement that exists for my own benefit, but I find that it tends to get âstuck in the weedsâ over issues that - frankly - I donât think matter very much in the scheme of things.
Comparable in what sense? I think thatâs a little too general to answer.
No, nor do I think minors should be enabled in medically transitioning. Full stop.
I think that man and woman (I.E. sex) are biological constructs, and the way society chooses to interpret categorizing then constitutes gender and gender roles.
1 Like
You two may be interested by what Iâve heard called the âGay Uncle Effect,â which lordgains is essentially describing here. Essentially (Iâm speaking from memory here) - the genes run in families, and even if the members carrying them in an active form donât pass them on, they help support the family as a whole in a way which leads to them having more kids overall.
This has been observed in nature, too. Some species have same-sex mating pairs will âadoptâ children of dead family members.
2 Likes
You like them older I see. I was more into girls compared to women at that age, but to each their own haha.
I get what you mean. I guess what I was getting at was that I wasnât turned on by girls before puberty. I thought they were cute, but I didnât want to have sex with them if that makes sense. I wasnât nearly as motivated to get to know them.
1 Like
What I was trying to say was rather along the lines of: propagating your own genes to the next generation is the prime biological imperative of life (it is even the imperative of viruses which only consists of DNA and a few proteins).
Comparable as in psychological and biological effects, natures influence on the matter and societies capabilities to affect it. Furthermore, itâs status in the US constitution and the ârightsâ they should have, their societal place and their normalization.
For example, thereâs current evidence showing that instead of 3% of young women identifying as lesbian/bi, the number is now at around 20%, still only 3% of women report having had a same-sex sex experience in their life. So apparently they identify as non-binary and bi or lesbian, but they donât seem to act it out more than the generation before. So essentially, you have either kids who wanna be hip or kids who are totally confused changing their orientation and gender for different reasons. I think thatâs a huge difference in kind to homosexuals.
That is partly an answer to the question, since you donât have a problem with homosexuality being advertised (in movies for example). So I guess you are differentiating between the two.
Biological constructs is a funny wording, but I agree.
This is interesting. It seems to me that you think society is the gate keeper of âgenderâ then. I think thereâs mountains of evidence showing that the differences between men and women are largely biological. (That essentially is the whole thesis Iâve built my relationship advice and opinion above on)
So in my opinion, biology would have a greater influence on your gender than society if you are not actively and aggressively pushed in one direction. If men and women can freely choose, then men are masculine and women are feminine. Do you agree with that?
Do you then think gender is a solely societal phenomenon and biology has nothing to do with it?
Then another one on the concept of gender: if gender is only a human construct resting on the biologically created body, shouldnât the body not play a role in your gender expression? Why do transsexual men need to transition to a female body if the gender has nothing to do with biology? I actually think this is one of the big logical problems of the current gender ideology.
And this finally will likely be the point we canât resolve but since we have a good exchange of opinions going, I will give you mine and maybe we can get even more out of it.
What you are describing here is the philosophical idea that fulfillment of self-actualization is the central goal of life. I believe it is not and it canât be and it is in and of itself not good for society. The problem is that self actualization is not meant to be a goal, but a manifestation of what one does. The process works by pursuing your motivations and going into the direction where you think life gets better, therefore self actualizing. The process does not work by trying to find your meaning and therefore searching through spiritual and mental and emotional trials. If your goal is to find your own meaning, then you will become a person you arenât meant to be or would be if you let your potential unfold. (âCritique of self actualization theoryâ by Maslow himself describes this)
Iâll break it down: the pursuit of self actualization is the person who goes to every different guru seminar to learn about himself while not actually moving forward in life. The actually self actualizing person is moving forward in life and following his motivations and his responsibilities and therefore becoming a better and more grown human.
Thatâs why one does need goals in life and one needs a clear (hopefully for millennia tried and proven) description of what life will entail. The striving towards these universal and the individuals human goals will make him a person who finds meaning in his life without him pursuing it.
Thatâs why itâs important to instill virtues in your child, thatâs why itâs important to lay out a possible path for them and set long term goals that will
most likely make them happy while being good for the people around the child.
Thatâs also why confusing children about their gender and equalizing all paths of life is a form of child abuse. It is basically taking the acquired knowledge of humanity away from him and advertising every life choice as equally good. It is essentially the same as not having parents. Correct parental guidance instills the virtues that will make it easier for the child to live a long term fulfilling life.
If a child then deviates from the path laid out, that is alright and often good, as the general direction its life is heading in is good. Sometimes itâs not as good or life throws a curveball and life can still work out.
You would be an example of those. Likely hard-working, goal oriented, stable relationship, doing good for your adopted children, and likely more. You deviated in being homosexual but you are self actualizing none the less and you are making the world around you better. Now you can lay out the same path for your adopted child, like your parents advocating for a heterosexual marriage and children of its own genetic lineage. Instill the path in him of being goal oriented, pursuing his dreams and doing good for people around him in CONCRETE TERMS. If the child then deviates again, thatâs what can happen, but its life will likely still work out pretty well as it has internalized hard work, family, helping others, and the values of the Ten Commandments as a guideline.
So all in all, searching meaning is not how you find meaning. I think that is what the gender ideology believers are doing wrong. The try to self actualize by searching their own mind (and the internet) for âwho they really areâ, their âauthentic selfâ, all the while finding nothing but narcissism and confusion.
2 Likes
Exactly. Unless having homosexual brothers affects those things (or maternal perinatal mortality), I donât see why homosexual brothers would increase the fecundity of the sisters. Female promiscuity is not generally correlated with reproductive success (particularly in the absence of contraception). Finding a man to get her pregnant is not even really a secondary obstacle. The challenges historically were surviving pregnancy and childbirth and keeping the children alive.
The only argument I can see is that the homosexual brothers are more available to their sisters to provide support in taking care of their children because they donât have kids of their own, but I think that is a difficult argument to make. I just donât see an argument that can be made that somehow the sisters of homosexual men are themselves psychologically more optimized for reproduction. Any argument in this case also just runs into the opposite problem of why didnât all women evolve to act that way if it really is a better reproductive strategy.
An interesting hypothesis. My doubt would come from that fact that it implies that evolution is incapable of making men more masculine (when that is advantageous) without making their sisters into lesbians. Lots of things are possible, of course. But my gut just tells me that millions of years of evolution could be more nuanced.
1 Like
I donât know that it is advantageous to get more womb androgens on average. High androgens in the womb is a roll of the dice. You might end up ultra masculine, but you might also end up autistic.