Moved: could homosexuality be an adaption of an overpopulated world?

[Yellow]

Oh and to whomever said homosexual behavior was expected in Greek/Rome or whatever- it doesn't mean the person playing the submissive role didn't feel like they were being degraded

You have a good point. I hadn't thought of that before, but the cultural belief was that rape and other violations were the fault of the victim for being too weak or foolish to prevent it or defend themselves. So, people would have been more inclined to accept situations they can't control.

 

[Cherry Cola]

but homosexual people can be either submissive or dominant irregardless of sex, most wswitching betweeen both depending on the situation but with an overall preference, just like heterosexuals :O

 

[Jennywocky]

No, I think homosexuality is just a matter of sexual identity. If you feel like the dominant type, then you will be the 'male' whether or not you're a male or female. If you feel like the submissive type then you will be the 'female', whether or not you're literally male or not.

So if you feel like a dominant woman, you'll identify as lesbian? And a submissive male, you'll be gay? or what exactly ARE you trying to say here?

 

[Yellow]

Wait. Gay couples don't necessarily have dominant and submissive partners or switching for that matter. Many relationships are largely egalitarian (vanilla).

 

[Cherry Cola]

So if you feel like a dominant woman, you'll identify as lesbian? And a submissive male, you'll be gay? or what exactly ARE you trying to say here?

wondering the same :P

 

[onesteptwostep]

So if you feel like a dominant woman, you'll identify as lesbian? And a submissive male, you'll be gay? or what exactly ARE you trying to say here?

Hmm I'm not sure with lesbians, but for men I think that's how it is. My missionary friend from Thailand says (male) homosexuals there usually are both submissive (like with an overall preference of being submissive). Someone just takes up the plate of being dominant. I guess the word 'type' isn't a good way of putting it. Maybe something like 'sexual essence' or 'sexual spirit'. idk

Like someone said, you can play a role but there's an overall preference or natural affinity to a one sexual identity. If not, there always the 'bisexual' term (though I'm sort of skeptical about it).

In relationship and lifestyle there isn't really a fixed 'gender role' nowdays, but with sex, I'm not sure if you can divorce the identities out of the picture.

 

[Jennywocky]

Hmm I'm not sure with lesbians, but for men I think that's how it is. My missionary friend from Thailand says (male) homosexuals there usually are both submissive (like with an overall preference of being submissive). Someone just takes up the plate of being dominant. I guess the word 'type' isn't a good way of putting it. Maybe something like 'sexual essence' or 'sexual spirit'. idk

Like someone said, you can play a role but there's an overall preference or natural affinity to a one sexual identity. If not, there always the 'bisexual' term (though I'm sort of skeptical about it).

In relationship and lifestyle there isn't really a fixed 'gender role' nowdays, but with sex, I'm not sure if you can divorce the identities out of the picture.

Your missionary friend is gay? Or you're just creating this theory from the ideas of a missionary friend in another country? Did you talk to any gay people?

 

[onesteptwostep]

No, he isn't gay (or at least I think anyway. now that you made me think about it..). Yes, I'm sort of theorizing, but it's also based on my experiences with a friend who claimed to be bisexual.

 

[Jennywocky]

No, he isn't gay (or at least I think anyway. now that you made me think about it..). Yes, I'm sort of theorizing, but it's also based on my experiences with a friend who claimed to be bisexual.

Yeah, I see this is ending up like your conversation with SpaceYeti. You tend to "theorize" a lot without bothering to really getting a good solid flow of information underneath your ideas.

Bisexual also isn't gay.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Yeah, I won't deny that I have that tendency. I've gotten in loads of trouble for it before :[






Do you have experiences or insights with gays or lesbians though? I know you have some years on you (I mean relative to the most of us, not to be disrespectful ^^;

 

[Brontosaurie]

bisexual is gay and also straight

 

[Jennywocky]

Do you have experiences or insights with gays or lesbians though? I know you have some years on you (I mean relative to the most of us, not to be disrespectful ^^;

haha. Yeah. Uh, thanks.

I have a number of friends/family who are part of the LGBT community. I haven't said much so far because I wanted to get my thoughts together and fairly represent it.

Also, there's various complications, one of which you did note... the cultural locale. That would impact manifestation as well as how someone frames their own identity. (I mean, language and experience shapes how we think of something, correct?)

I found the earlier part of the conversation interesting, when it was discussed how perhaps the notion of population control might be contributing to the more frequent manifestation of homosexuality + changing social mores so as to no longer require them to procreate in a population already engaging all of its resources. It's not like same-sex attractions never existed, it's just the social demands on those who experience them have been changing in ways we have not seen recently, in first-world countries at least.

In any case, you can have Type A dominant women who don't perceive themselves as men and are attracted to men, and you can have submissive men who still view themselves as men and are attracted to women. (You ever hear of lipstick lesbians, and bears, and .... ? There's a huge variety of gays and lesbians out there.) Which was my issue with your comments earlier.

I can't understand it exactly except to frame it against het experience, which is that I am attracted to men (albeit with some minor erotic feelings towards other women but on a non-sex level, maybe a Kinsey 2?) It's not like I had to "decide" what I am, attraction is just attraction. And when people explore their sexual or gender identity, a majority seem to be more just trying looking for the right fit -- some people find it quickly, some have to explore more. It's not necessarily that they are creating their own proclivities, it's that once they experience the right thing, everything gels.

Gay men who tell me they were not really EVER attracted to women, they were hot for men as soon as they hit puberty. Same for women who experienced that kind of thing. Or there are those who tried to be het and it just didn't work for them (they still thought they were straight because everyone is supposed to be), and once they had an experience with a same-sex partner woman, they knew. Or bi (although I have the least experience with bi people).

 

[onesteptwostep]

In any case, you can have Type A dominant women who don't perceive themselves as men and are attracted to men, and you can have submissive men who still view themselves as men and are attracted to women. (You ever hear of lipstick lesbians, and bears, and .... ? There's a huge variety of gays and lesbians out there.) Which was my issue with your comments earlier.

Hmm okay I see where the confusion came from. If you put it that way then yeah, they're definitely hetero. I think the roles sort of traditionalize when you actually put two different sexes in bed though. I mean that's what good s.. *cough* yeah >_>

Or if that isn't the case then the whole 'dominatrix' thing comes in.

Gay men who tell me they were not really EVER attracted to women, they were hot for men as soon as they hit puberty. Same for women who experienced that kind of thing. Or there are those who tried to be het and it just didn't work for them (they still thought they were straight because everyone is supposed to be), and once they had an experience with a same-sex partner woman, they knew. Or bi (although I have the least experience with bi people).

I've never talked to a homosexual person who experienced just that. Hmm this makes it all confusing x_X I guess it shows that sexual orientation is developed somewhere before adolescence though.

It's a bit personal of me, but I did have an experience where my senses became hyper-acute (through psychosis) and felt both normative sexual attraction (like magnified reaaaaally intensely, maybe to the point of hyponosis), then same-sex attraction (maybe not sexually, but some type of attraction was there). It was pretty traumatic but it definitely made me think of what it means to be homosexual.

I guess homosexuality could be something more than just sexual identity/role, though.

What confuses me is the environment that the homosexual was in before development then. If they could find a commonality through all cultures (not just western ones) then I think it could be possible pinpoint the natural cause or reason of homosexuality. I really don't think it's related to population like the OP suggests though. I really don't think genes have to do with it either... (well I understand that genes can nod to a preference but that's all) I think putting homosexuality in some evolution narrative is just silly. But anyway that's my take.