Quinto is out of the closet
- Thread starter Kamdan
- Start date
And it isn't simply a matter of bio-chemistry, there also physical brain structure differences, and the strength (and weaknesses) of various neural connections within the brain. The cerebral networks themselves are different.
In the parts of the brain linked to sexual behavior, the brain anatomy of straight men and lesbians are similar, and gay men and straight women also have similar brains in those areas.
In the parts of the brain linked to sexual behavior, the brain anatomy of straight men and lesbians are similar, and gay men and straight women also have similar brains in those areas.
So why are they gay? "Because of the genes" is a way too general answer. What is gayness? You say there is no difference. So why are they gay? Genes are only the blueprint. What is different in the bodies because of that "gay gene"?
I'd love to hear the answers to those question too.
No, not really.
It kinda depends on whether or not that woman is Ilia, now doesn't it?
Anyway, the basic point is that all humans react to the same stimuli but not all humans react the same way. The most acute example of this is an allergic reaction: one person reacts to the ingestion of, say, chocolate with a release of endorphins, the other reacts by going into anaphalactic shock. They both react, but react differently.
Genetic predispositions code for certain innate tendencies, not just sexual preferences. For example, some kids--even from infancy--tend to be loud, boisterous, active and adventurous, others are quiet, shy, timid, cautious. Some are dangerously brave, others are shamefully cowardly.
There are variations among homosexuals too. Some are effeminate and flamboyant, some are only subtly different from straight men except for their sexual preference. Same thing for lesbians: you've got butchy girls and "lipstick lesbians" and the only thing that seems to separate them is their innate preferences in style and behavior.
Speaking as a guy with three kids, I am 101% convinced that most of these things are primarily determined by genetics and only take shape through education and acculturation.
Last edited:
chard -
I'm curious, why are you willing to attribute different desire to s genetic cause of gayness but not attraction?
That is not what chardman says. He tells us that gays react in exactly the same way, but then actively and consciously redirect that reaction... you know what, it's still bullshit.
These innate tendencies... aren't they caused by over/under production of endorphines, testosterone, adrenaline and stuff... you know, hormones, transmitters, proteins and the like? All of which is defined by the genetic code. But still, the statement "gay/loud/brave/cowardly because of the genes" is WAY too general, because there are direct reasons in the body functions for that. Yes, genes define if you have blonde or black hair. But what does that mean? It means that because of the genes the body produces stuff that makes your hair blonde, or your body produces stuff that makes your hair black. Because of your genes you are always anxious. That only means that because of your genes your body tends to overproduce neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine.
To a fictional stimuli generated by an alien species that somehow manages to affect human beings. Biochemically it's equivalent to a bee sting or a snakebite.
To be sure, the same way that all human beings would react to the sound of a loud "BANG" in the middle of the room. The human response to this is a rush of adrenaline and the standard "fight or flight" response, but a naturally brave/adventurous person is strongly predisposed to pick "fight," in which case his arms come up and he drops into a slight crouch position as if he's getting ready to tackle something. The more timid/cautious person is strongly predisposed to pick "flight" in which case they usually duck their heads down and start looking for an exit path.
The point is arousal is a BIOCHEMICAL condition, while the object of that arousal is a predisposition/psychological condition. You can condition a homosexual to ignore his natural tendencies and at least pretend to go with unnatural ones (people--homosexuals in particular--have been doing that for decades) but it doesn't change the innate tendency. In the same way that a person who is born a coward can choose to be brave for a few minutes, a person who is born homosexual can choose to be straight just long enough to win a congressional election.
Nothing active or conscious about it... unless, of course, they see Ilia, register biochemical arousal and then decide "Hell, you only live once, maybe I should give pussy a try?"
Basically, yes. But the combinations of these hormones and proteins has an effect on how the brain develops, which is why those tendencies become permanent very early on in the brain's development.
Genes is the root cause of it all, though. Once you get into the more direct causes the answer gets a hell of a lot more complicated, not least of which because we don't completely understand how that process works BEYOND the genetic level. We have a basic idea, but that's it.
THAT is a huge oversimplification, actually. There's a whole school of thought in psychiatry that a person's entire personality is really just the sum of the chemical balances in the brain and that you can turn a serial killer into a nun just by picking the right combination of drugs.
I think your are missing the point that he is saying that gays go against the arousal that is caused by women.
He saying, again and again, that gays have the same biochemical reaction to women as straight men have.
No, he is saying gays (in this case) go with their arrousal that is caused by ILIA, who is not a woman, and is in fact an alien with some kickin pheremones. They DO go with their arrousal and act on that arrousal the way that is natural for them: by seeking out the object of their desire or the closest thing to it.
It would be no different if Ilia's pheremones caused uncontrollable hunger. BIOCHEMICALLY, the reaction is to cause every carnivore/omnivore in the room to want to eat Ilia. But their first instinctive reaction is actually a craving for something they are predisposed to like anyway.
First, I never said there was no difference at all between gays and straights, just that there were no distinctive biochemical differences between them, yet readily admitted to other types of biological differences.
And the article doesn't really dispute that, now does it? It talks about different reactions to the normal chemistry of others, but not differences within their own chemistry itself. And those different reactions, all seem to be differences in intensity, rather than type.
So, let's return to the question: why are they gay?
Again, it's genes. To be more specific, genes which aren't causing any chemical imbalances, but which are instead determining the diversity and distribution of chemical receptors throughout the body.
Receptors are how chemicals from without actually get within the various systems of the body. If one has a lot of a certain type of receptor, one has a greater capacity to absorb and respond to a given substance. If one has few of a specific kind of receptor, the less of a corresponding substance that individual can readily absorb and thus be affected by.
Following this thus far?
And from the article, it appears as if Gay men must have a greater number of receptors for testosterone, than for estrogen, and thus react more strongly to the arousal properties of the male hormone than of the female. (Simple chemistry insures that they'd still react to estrogen, but just to a significantly lesser degree than straight men would. And, as I said before, they'd invariable channel this errant arousal toward what they actually desired.)
We can therefore infer that Straight guys likely have more receptors for estrogen than testosterone, and thus respond more readily to chicks than dudes. (Likewise, they would still have some testosterone receptors, and would thus not be entirely immune to the testosterone of other men, but this would pretty much be outweighed by their sensitivity to estrogen.)
And I'm guessing that Bi-guys likely have a fairly balanced distribution of both kinds of receptors, thus making them more or less equally susceptible to both testosterone and estrogen.
At no time does the article imply that gays have a notably different biochemistry from straight men, or that any chemical imbalances are at all involved. It's still a genetically determined state, and therefore NOT a choice, but is the result of a purely biological root cause. And it's a state that's still unlikely to ever be "cured" at any time in the foreseeable future, thank goodness.
Any questions?
Fine by me. Too damn sleepy to express myself clearly anywho. Surprised as hell that Newtype Alpha has actually managed to "translate" any of my sleep-deprived ramblings and ill-expressed notions into something he can actually understand. He's either very, very perceptive or a complete loon. My ego demands I embrace the former, and deny the latter.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
I wish the gays and everyone else would just stop offending me. Why can't everyone just see the world as it should be: my way. I get so exhausted having to tolerate everyone all the time.
Similar threads
