Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again and will the rise of homosexuality cause human

Soldato
Joined
5 Dec 2006
Posts
15,370
Sexual promiscuity is at an all time high. With the rise in popular media (cheaper TVs, cheaper internet, cheaper computers, phones, tablets, etc.) the world is being fed tonnes of sex propaganda.

We humble Overclocker-ers might not notice this, but the current generation of young girls are growing up idolising Beyonce, Rihanna et al. (and Justin Beiber, who I'll get to later). Boys and girls are becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages. Lets face it, you rarely, if ever, see "celebrity idols" fully or decently clothed these days.

For example (among many), on several occasions I have witnessed girls who I thought had completely forgotten to wear a skirt over their tights (these weren't jeggings).

Now this is where Justin Bieber comes in. These young girls are growing up believing Justin Bieber is a man. When they become sexually active, the age of which is also getting younger and younger, they will naturally limit themselves to skinny-jeans wearing borderline homosexuals. Gone will be the days when women were attracted to manly-men.

This brings me onto the topic of homosexuality. (I stress that I'm not judging homosexuality in any way, merely discussing the evolutionary impact of increasing homosexuality.)
The media is full of homosexuality. Gok Wan, Alan Carr, David Walliams et al, are filling the media with gayness. These days, heterosexuality is being phased out as a necessity of life and homosexuality is being influx as a choice of life. Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.


I'm not saying decent women and straight men will be wiped out in a months time; I'm simply predicting that they will become scarce, like ancient tribes are today, in 100 to 5,000 years time.
 
I will be the first to say at 7.52am on a Sunday morning, that this is probably the worst 'Homos are taking over the world' thread ever,

I couldn't disagree with you more, people are people and will always be, regardless of sexual orientation, or Just Beiber lol

I would like to reiterate, if "'homos are taking over the world'" then so be it.

I am NOT judging! :)
 
Guys please try to keep it civil in here. I'm still open to opinions, not gays (sorry Mr brennen :p), and I've already learnt stuff from this thread. :)
 
Last edited:
Source?



Source?



Source?




Source?


What on Earth are you on about? You need to read some history books.

Adolescent sexual maturation ages being reduced by easy access to celebrity sexcapades and the abundance of pornography via electronic media will not be mentioned in history books.

My reasoning was that children get hold of "media" at younger ages these days (Tablets, phones, etc are all being provided to younger and younger children as affordability increases). Therefore are being exposed to "celebrity sex" and "porn" at younger ages. Therefore becoming sexualised younger?

Just look at the 2002 introduction of the 12A BBFC rating. "Ah yes, from now on we'll let your 8 year old kid watch all this drug abuse and suggested rape as long as he's with a **** parent."

I see that isn't the case then. :)
 
Last edited:
Sex propaganda as you call it might be at an all time high but that's probably got a lot to do with the rise in availability of existing and new media sources - pretty much anyone can publish a "news" story. For better or worse mediums such as Twitter are being picked up by more traditional media as sources for their material and as a way to interact with their audience.

History would suggest that sexual promiscuity probably hasn't changed too much, it might be that we're hearing more about it currently but even that tends to be cyclical when you consider that a number of civilisations have been at least as concerned with sex as we are currently. Some eras have been more prudish than ours and others less - it doesn't make either choice right in an absolute sense, it just demonstrates changing sexual and social mores in society.



Boys & girls arguably aren't becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages, it might well be concerning to some but history again suggests that marriage (and sex) was often amongst people much younger than present age of consent. Our attitude and choice of 16 (in the UK) for an age of consent is a comparatively recent thing, that's a luxury we have with increasing life expectancy rates and you could argue also due to a greater knowledge about the physiological and mental changes that take place in growing up but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct for all - 16 is just a line in the sand, it's a reasonable one for most but little more than that.



Are you worried that you're a manly-man and you'll lose out? I should point out here that clothing choice doesn't necessarily dictate sexuality either, some of the fashions for men throughout history would make skinny jeans look positively butch.



If you can point me to something that shows homosexuality is a choice I'd be much obliged. I don't think it's just a case of "you know what, I fancy a bit of man love tonight" for most but maybe it's something that you can do.

As far as I can tell sexuality is basically a spectrum, you'll find some people who are almost exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, some who are almost exclusively attracted to the same sex and then there will be the rest who fit somewhere along the continuum with varying degrees of attraction to others. However that doesn't suggest that all people can just choose to be gay or straight, that's where a nature vs nurture argument comes in.



A slightly worrying link you've tried to draw here - decent/straight. There's not necessarily any correlation between the two except that you are judging and imputing your value system onto whole groups of people just because you don't happen to agree with their lifestyle or how they dress.

Thanks for such a thorough reply. It makes sense. :)

In regards to the last paragraph, I'm not drawing any link. You've put "decent/straight" like I'm saying straight=decent? If so, it's not what I meant.

The phrase "decent women" was merely describing girls who do not copy Rihanna's and Beyonce's style, and remain "decent". A good synonym of decent in this context would be "respectable".

I know R & B dress like whores because sex sells, but someone idolising them will not know that.
 
Last edited:
I freely admit to jumping to a conclusion here on reading your user name but is your rant religiously motivated?

Absolutely not. I guess it's obvious I was born into religion, but I'm not religious at all.

Also, I'm not ranting; I'm not angry, or distressed at anything!
 
Last edited:
You do realise that these 'ancient tribes' you're referring to tend to wear even less clothing than the women you're criticising. Think remote Brazilian tribes, Africans, aborigines in Australia.... tend to not have much on in general.

Your OP is fundamentally flawed... wearing little clothing is something some humans have done since humans have been human... and homosexuals have pretty much always existed too.

That's precisely why I used the word "devolve". In other words, "going back" to wearing less.
 
So when did you chose to be straight?

This is just poorly veiled homophobia in my eyes.

Good lord.

Did I say people choose to be straight? No.

Did I say homosexuals choose to be gay? No.

I said people can choose to be gay.

I didn't say people cannot be born gay.


You understand now?
 
So you're saying that people choose their sexuality up until a certain age then it's fixed forever?


Did you consciously choose to be straight?


also seriously if you've already finished your "sexual exploration" damn the rest of your life is going to be pretty bland and repetitive.

Oh dear no. I'm just saying it's possible. Just possible.

Look at sexual fetishes. How do they come about? Surely you aren't born wanting to suck feet? Certain events happen during growth, certain thoughts occur, hormonal imbalances. Whether it's concious or subconscious... This is what shapes your sexual desire.

One can be furiously masturbating one day and suddenly realise he's sexually attracted to feet. Just like the Duncan James example above realising he is attracted to boys too.

No one can be genetically homosexual or heterosexual. It's genetically impossible to be homosexual or heterosexual. Genetically, it's as simple as the sperm and the egg, that is all. Mental attraction is just that, Mental. The type of women you like, your fantasies and fetishes, and whether you like boys or girls is all down to the events in your life. These "events" can happen even when you're a year old which is why people commonly think you're born gay.

You cannot be technically born gay or even straight for that matter.

If one can master his own mind, he can choose to not do the drugs he's addicted to right? You aren't born with a drug addiction, even though it becomes the norm of your life.


I hope you can somewhat understand my ramble.
 
Last edited:
yes you can, there's been plenty of cases where babies have been addicted to herion and alcahol or what ever else the mother has been taking.

Dear oh dear. That's a chemical addiction. Not a mental addiction. Even chemical addictions can be overcome if the mind is strong enough.
 
your understanding is that 50% of gay people are gay because of sexual abuse?:confused:

I don't know about that but it sounds possible. Abuse can shape many things in our future lives. Surely you've heard that a lot of pedos were abused as children themselves?
 
Yes and there is a huge gay conspiracy to cover up gay abuse, because the gays know that's where half of their "new recruits" come from. If it the spot light was put on it, and the abusers were stopped the number of gays would drop drastically, along with their political influence.

****! I should've known!


:p
 
The reason I ask is because there has been at least one study which showed that there were differences in the brains of heterosexual and homosexual individuals e.g. a heterosexual male brain has more in common with a homosexual female brain than it does with a homosexual male brain and the alternate that a homosexual male brain has more in common with a heterosexual female brain than otherwise. The study is relatively small so comes with all the caveats that entails but it is at least prima facie evidence that nature plays a large role in sexual orientation and that you can be born gay.

That doesn't mean you're born gay. Well not conceived gay anyway.

Changes in the brain happen continuously. Even right now new connections are forming and others are deforming. This is why I said I cant be gay because I've passed sexual maturation (puberty). The connections in my brain have "fixed" or matured. In a sexually immature individual these changes can happen when you're 10 hours old or even 10 years old.
 
It's nature vs nurture.


I think you are either born gay or environmental factors cause you to become gay while their brain develops as they grow up.

If one is born gay (not genetically, rather hormonally in the womb), then these same environmental factors can cause one to become straight.

This is why I'm saying you cannot be born gay/straight genetically. Because environment can affect it. The environment cannot affect the colour of your eyes - which is an actual genetic trait.

So if you were genetically conceived gay/straight, the hormonal imbalances and environmental effects would have no affect on sexuality. Which isn't the case.
 
Last edited:
<ponders deleting OP's account>

asim18-crying.gif
 
Evolution is the adaption of a living thing over time to it's environment and conditions so it can survive and continue the cycle of life, having a gay gene would totally go against that. If 99% of the world population had the "gay gene", we would be in serious trouble wouldn't we? How would you pass on a "gay gene" anyway?

I agree with this part.

There's no way homo/hetero is defined by genetics. If you got the sperm of a gay man and fertilised the egg of a lesbian the child would simply not be guaranteed homosexual.

Being homo/hetero or whatever makes your boat float is all in the mind - whether it's girl's toes, chiseled pecs, facial hair, or car exhaust pipes. It's due to life events, thoughts you have as a child, hormonal fluctuations; all environmental factors.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom