Are Guys Born Straight

[B_Think_Kink]

would this count for men who develop homosexual desires later in life as well like 20's, 30's

Yeah, although it seems more to me like they were trying to hide it or hadn't clued into themselves by that point.

 

[lucky8]

You can fuck someone's armpit, but that is not what the armpit was designed for, and the ability to do it, does not mean that is what the intention was for its use.

lol HILARIOUS

 

[AquaEyes11010]

That has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. No one is questioning right or wrong, we are discussing biology and genetics...not right and wrong.

Then let's remove "design" from the discussion, since "design" implies intention of a designer, of which there is none in biology or genetics. What is just is, and if having a specific trait/behavior leads to an individual/family having better reproductive output than another individual/family who doesn't, then the trait/behavior will continue. As such, if there wasn't a benefit to homosexual behavior in the human species, it wouldn't have persisted through all cultures and history.

 

[lucky8]

what you jsut referred to, aqua, is a form of indirect design.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Yeah, although it seems more to me like they were trying to hide it or hadn't clued into themselves by that point.

understandable, but i don't see why people are fighting against the possibility for someone to be born one way, then much later in their life convert to another. i believe a man can be straight for most of his life and later develop sexual attraction to men. we don't immediately from the womb realize that we're gay, so it must be entirely possible for some to discover these feelings much later in life even though it seems most of us recognize them earlier on. and i refuse to believe that every case of such means they're surpressing gay desires. i've NEVER been attracted to females ever, had a few girlfriends in high school and did things (with the help of a playful imagination, every girlfriend was "mario lopez" to me) only to throw people off. but i was at a party a few months ago and started making out with this GORGEOUS ecuadorian girl (her sisters an annoying bitch though) but anyway i found myself getting aroused and that has certainly never happened with a female without me fantasizing about a man first. i definitely haven't been surpressing an attraction to women, it was never there but it would seem that one is developing. OH MY GOD!!! i'm turning into a bisexual!?!?!?!?!? dum dum DUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!

 

[Flashy]

Why don't you think that is fair? Since homosexuality exists in all species, and those male animals that engage in it do not reproduce, why wouldn't it exist in humans? It is clear that not all male species are suppose to reproduce. This is why this discussion is so interesting. It makes us look at things from a completely different prospective. Who really knows what the "rules of behavior" are suppose to be? Most of those rules are just made up by straight people.

homosexuality does not in fact exist in all species. It occurs in many.

nobody says that "rules" have to be followed 100% and certainly not ones made up "by straight people" in terms of societal rules and sexual rules...however, in nature, those are not "rules of behavior" but facts of natural, instinctual drive, imprinted in the species, and homosexuality in those animals is not unnatural, but it is not normal, and nor is it a part of intended design....evolution and biology is about sense and design, and in evolutionary, natural terms, homosexuality serves no purpose in a world where the only thing that matures is natural selection and the continuation of the species.

fortunately, humans take a more emotional and obviously "evolved" approach to homosexuality (decent thinking human beings anyways) then mother nature does.

 

[B_Epic_Size]

heterosexuality and homosexuality are both biological in nature. its part of your genetic make up. its not something you choose. its just who you are. now if youre straight and become gay (like many do or did) its because its still not ok for people to be gay. even today. so while it may seem like a choice to more close minded people its not. gay or straight, its in your genes.

 

[B_Nick4444]

one of the truest things about Mother Nature is the Gaussian curve, and the continuum of that curve

homosexuality does not in fact exist in all species. It occurs in many.

nobody says that "rules" have to be followed 100% and certainly not ones made up "by straight people" in terms of societal rules and sexual rules...however, in nature, those are not "rules of behavior" but facts of natural, instinctual drive, imprinted in the species, and homosexuality in those animals is not unnatural, but it is not normal, and nor is it a part of intended design....evolution and biology is about sense and design, and in evolutionary, natural terms, homosexuality serves no purpose in a world where the only thing that matures is natural selection and the continuation of the species.

fortunately, humans take a more emotional and obviously "evolved" approach to homosexuality (decent thinking human beings anyways) then [sic] mother nature does.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

the male body is in fact designed for straight sex. There is a reason shit comes out of the anus, because technically, you are not supposed to go up there...the fact that people do is a testament to humans wanting to experience a different kind of pleasure, but no, the male body is absolutely not designed for gay sex. Gay sex is incidental to the male body and has to do with attraction...not function....since anal stimulation can be and is frequently used by women on men....which is also not an intent of the design of the body, merely a discovery that a pleasurable spot can be reached in a way that you are really not supposed to be doing.

The anus is filled with potential disease, microbes, bacteria etc. it is not a natural entry point, and the prostate is not "in the anus", it is behind the walls of the anus and is no way related in function whatsoever to the functions of the anus. The anus was not, and never has been intended for use, either by gay or straight people...people simply choose to experiment and many find it enjoyable.

You can fuck someone's armpit, but that is not what the armpit was designed for, and the ability to do it, does not mean that is what the intention was for its use.

But we discovered it.. so might as well use it.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

understandable, but i don't see why people are fighting against the possibility for someone to be born one way, then much later in their life convert to another. i believe a man can be straight for most of his life and later develop sexual attraction to men. we don't immediately from the womb realize that we're gay, so it must be entirely possible for some to discover these feelings much later in life even though it seems most of us recognize them earlier on. and i refuse to believe that every case of such means they're surpressing gay desires. i've NEVER been attracted to females ever, had a few girlfriends in high school and did things (with the help of a playful imagination, every girlfriend was "mario lopez" to me) only to throw people off. but i was at a party a few months ago and started making out with this GORGEOUS ecuadorian girl (her sisters an annoying bitch though) but anyway i found myself getting aroused and that has certainly never happened with a female without me fantasizing about a man first. i definitely haven't been surpressing an attraction to women, it was never there but it would seem that one is developing. OH MY GOD!!! i'm turning into a bisexual!?!?!?!?!? dum dum DUUUUMMMMMM!!!!!!

I've always been attracted to pretty men. Incidentally most of them are gay. Therefore I consider myself bi-gendered because I go through life doing more things like a gay man would that a girl would.

 

[HyperHulk]

Then let's remove "design" from the discussion, since "design" implies intention of a designer, of which there is none in biology or genetics. What is just is, and if having a specific trait/behavior leads to an individual/family having better reproductive output than another individual/family who doesn't, then the trait/behavior will continue. As such, if there wasn't a benefit to homosexual behavior in the human species, it wouldn't have persisted through all cultures and history.

Aquaeyes, your posts have been absolutely brilliant. I've been gone all day and didn't have a chance to respond and thank jebus because your responses were better than anything I could have said. I want to back you up but I'm exhausted now and have to head to bed.

I hope people focus more on what you wrote and less on the prostrate arguments some have advanced. My major problem with those arguments is that they ignore homosexuality in women who don't have prostrates. Also, just because a prostrate can make anal sex pleasurable for a man, you don't need another man to access that spot. The prostrate arguments just derail the conversation.

Keep up the good fight aqua--you're brilliant.

Oh yeah, before I head to bed, you mentioned that homosexual relationships were unique to humans--don't forget about the gay penguins.:wink: I believe the research into animal homosexual behavior has documented various instances of long term homosexual relationships.

I'll add more later.

 

[marleyisalegend]

\I believe the research into animal homosexual behavior has documented various instances of long term homosexual relationships.

I'll add more later.

and mice and monkeys (though the idea of two dude monkeys having monkey butt-sex almost turns me straight)

 

[HyperHulk]

homosexuality does not in fact exist in all species. It occurs in many.

I used to have an article that spoke to this but I can't seem to find it now and too tired to look at the moment. However, I found this, give it a read and will follow up later:

Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

 

[Flashy]

First of all, we are not "designed." Let's just clear that up from the get-go. Evolution is a concept, not a consciousness. So let's get rid of the idea that there are things we are designed for and not designed for. There's an easy proof of this by tracing evolutionary patterns -- evolution piggy-backs.

I am a strict evolutionist...and we are designed...by evolution. I couldn't care less about those idiot intelligent design types. I use design as a means of discussing the design of the body as an engine of development that is naturally streamlined and improved as a species evolves.

Evolution is in fact a means of a process of design, i never alluded to a consciousness, nor do i believe in one, and especially in regards to nature. We are in fact designed by evolution to be the optimal engine for reproduction and survival at the most efficient possible level based on our evolution.


By this I mean that body styles and organs and functions, etc, evolve by changing slightly from the previous style/organ/function. As a result, often times something that had one apparent function takes on another, and as that other function becomes beneficial within the population, so any other changes furthering the beneficial effect of that new function will be more likely to reproduce. Where am I going with this?





I've already established that within human culture, and also that of our non-human primate relatives the chimps and bonobos, sex is not solely for reproduction. There are social values to the act, it occurs outside a female's reproductive period, occurs between non-heterosexual partners, etc.


nobody has disagreed with that. Female chimps rub their vulvas together all the time and it serves no reproductive purpose so it is obviously for something else i.e. pleasure or intimacy and establishing bonds.



If sex has developed a new function within a species' society, and some individuals are then able to exploit that fact by engaging in sex more often, or with more partners, or with partners of their same gender, would not those individuals then reap more benefits within their society? For example, if sex can diffuse hostility (and yes, it can), would it not be more beneficial for a male individual to be able to offer sex to another male so as to avoid physical confrontation, which might result in serious injury or death? Those males able to do so would be more likely to survive and thus pass on their genes.

except that is not how conflicts are resolved...there are subtle non-sexual avoidance rituals in most species designed to posture and determine social dominance without resorting to confrontion, that are seen in most species. You do not have to engage in homosexuality to do that, and in fact, what is most common in male animals are stare downs and dominance displays as well as visual recognition of size, superiority , tests of strength, etc. Those serve to diffuse situations...one does not need to resort to homosexuality to do those things.

Passing on one's genes is not dependent on diffusing hostility with sex. In fact, it is just the opposite...it is about proving which male is the strongest, biggest, most resistant, most dominant, i.e. the ideal mate for continuing the bloodlines, and it is not done by displays of homosexuality, but by fighting, posturing, displaying etc. throughout the animal kingdom

Females, too, seem to have anatomical features to indicate that pleasure from sex is not derived solely from male-female intercourse, and among our non-human primate relatives, a parallel can be seen. Chimps rarely engage in female-female sex, but bonobos often do so.

NOt true...female chimps often engage in it both as a sexual relief and as bonding.


Chimp vulvas are more rear-orientated, but bonobos have theirs more front-orientated, like ours. Bonobos also have more clitorises more "outside-accessible" like humans, as compared to chimps. This would indicate that pleasurable non-heterosexual sex had some selection favor among anatomy.

no not necessarily. it suggests nothing more then an evolutionary process. the clitoris is what would have been a penis with an extra chromosome added at the crucial point...this may have to do with the relative sizes or primates you know what's, what range in size from smaller (Gorillas) to larger (Chimps)

there is no indication that these were for "pleasure purposes"


If sex for non-reproductive reasons became an important part of society, then those individuals reinforced by more extreme pleasure as a result of slight differences in their anatomy would be more inclined to partake in those non-reproductive social-aspect sex acts, and thus likely achieve higher rank and beget more offspring with similar attributes.

The point of my retort is that judgment does not apply in deciphering evolution, because judgment was not a part of evolution.

I would disagree completely...Evolution is the harshest judgement there is. Just ask the dinosaurs, ask the Wooly Mammoth, the Sabre Toothed Tiger, the Megaladon Shark and the Dodo.


A very small change can have a slightly beneficial aspect, which can then go off like a rocket over time. Evolutionary processes often take advantage of new uses for old things. Our ear bones are remnants of our reptilian ancestors' jaw bones. To insert judgment terms such as "it wasn't designed for that" is simply wrong. If it is possible, it likely happened. If it is reinforced by pleasurable sensations, it definitely happened....a lot.
;-)

Sorry, while it is very true that some things become others as useful development and adaptation, and many thousands can be seen across the spectrum of all creatures that have evolved today, the anus or anus type of function/feature of all creatures, in whatever form they take, has never been intended for anything other then waste excretion...not sex. If people derive pleasure from that fine, i certainly do with the company of a lady, both giving and receiving, but that is not at all what it was designed for and never was, and just because it is pleasurable does not mean it was ever inteneded for that, no matter if it feels pleasurable...

I also may remind you, that not every male finds anal play pleasurable...in fact many really do not like it in all fairness, and taking things in the anus is not something that most people, men and women, tend to enjoy.

 

[Flashy]

lol HILARIOUS

i try :wink:

 

[Flashy]

Then let's remove "design" from the discussion, since "design" implies intention of a designer, of which there is none in biology or genetics. What is just is, and if having a specific trait/behavior leads to an individual/family having better reproductive output than another individual/family who doesn't, then the trait/behavior will continue. As such, if there wasn't a benefit to homosexual behavior in the human species, it wouldn't have persisted through all cultures and history.

I don't wish to remove it :smile:

it speaks very clearly to me without denoting a being of consciousness pulling strings.

I believe very firmly in evolutionary design...i.e. the engine of life that has evolved and that constantly redesigns itself to fit its needs and to progress etc.

it is in fact a biological design, that evolves and tweaks as it goes on. our whole planet and all things that function on it are the product of natural design and adaptation, which has nothing to do with a higher being. our bodies our bio-engines, and engines have a design. our oceans have a design, as do ourwinds etc. etc. design is at the fundamental roots of our very being.

as such, however i have to disagree with your last line...homosexuality is in fact useless in evolutionary terms...in emotional terms, however, it most certainly is very important both to those who are and those who care about those who are and value them as much as they value anyone else.

 

[Flashy]

I used to have an article that spoke to this but I can't seem to find it now and too tired to look at the moment. However, I found this, give it a read and will follow up later:

Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

i have read it and have seen many documentaries on the subject.


It doesn't change the facts as i stated from the beginning and i restate again. Homosexuality is in fact abnormal...but it is not unnatural at all.

 

[auncut10in]

the male body is in fact designed for straight sex. There is a reason shit comes out of the anus, because technically, you are not supposed to go up there...the fact that people do is a testament to humans wanting to experience a different kind of pleasure, but no, the male body is absolutely not designed for gay sex. Gay sex is incidental to the male body and has to do with attraction...not function....since anal stimulation can be and is frequently used by women on men....which is also not an intent of the design of the body, merely a discovery that a pleasurable spot can be reached in a way that you are really not supposed to be doing.

The anus is filled with potential disease, microbes, bacteria etc. it is not a natural entry point, and the prostate is not "in the anus", it is behind the walls of the anus and is no way related in function whatsoever to the functions of the anus. The anus was not, and never has been intended for use, either by gay or straight people...people simply choose to experiment and many find it enjoyable.

You can fuck someone's armpit, but that is not what the armpit was designed for, and the ability to do it, does not mean that is what the intention was for its use.

People get the same diseases from fucking a vagina as they do from fucking an ass. And stimulating an arm pit will not give you an orgasm. The bottom line is there are only three organs that cause an orgasm when stimulated, the vagina, the penis and the prostrate. You still have not answered the question WHY the prostrate is designed to cause an orgasm when it is stimulated. I am just suggesting gay sex because I can not think of any straight reason why it would be designed like that. We are not talking about just feeling good, we are talking about what will cause an orgasm when stimulated. So keep your armpit stories out of the discussion.

Just so we are clear. Once more, a heart, a armpit, a hand, a toe or whatever you want to come up with next will not cause an orgasm when stimulated. So why is the prostrate designed to cause an orgasm when stimulated.

As far as it's location, I think most gay guys would say it is in the exact spot it should be located.

 

[B_Nick4444]

as such, however i have to disagree with your last line...homosexuality is in fact useless in evolutionary terms

only if you discount populations

 

[Flashy]

Aquaeyes, your posts have been absolutely brilliant. I've been gone all day and didn't have a chance to respond and thank jebus because your responses were better than anything I could have said. I want to back you up but I'm exhausted now and have to head to bed.

I hope people focus more on what you wrote and less on the prostrate arguments some have advanced. My major problem with those arguments is that they ignore homosexuality in women who don't have prostrates. Also, just because a prostrate can make anal sex pleasurable for a man, you don't need another man to access that spot. The prostrate arguments just derail the conversation.

Keep up the good fight aqua--you're brilliant.

Oh yeah, before I head to bed, you mentioned that homosexual relationships were unique to humans--don't forget about the gay penguins.:wink: I believe the research into animal homosexual behavior has documented various instances of long term homosexual relationships.

I'll add more later.

It is a prostate, not a prostrate :grumble:

though if you plan on prostate stimulation it may be a good idea to prostrate yourself.