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

I kinda get the OP's message, but I don't think we are in as much danger as he thinks. The World extends far beyond the borders of the US/UK, and believe me I think we have bigger problems on our hands when we talk about "humanity" as a whole.

One thing I will agree with though - is that young children are far too exposed to all manners of imagery which they would be better off without. However, the behaviour of their parents I think, and the idea of "moral values" to instil in children, are probably one of the main root causes for things like under-age sex and the "sexing up" of pre-teens and children in their early teens.

In other words, all the tools to sort Bieber and co. out are in the hands of the common man :/
 
PMKeates said:
While 'actual' homosexuality is probably not on the rise, practicising homosexuality is. In developed cultures with low birth rates, this will doom their civilisations.
Click to expand...

Being gay doesn't sterilise you.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The reason I picked up on it is because it appears to be drawing a link by suggesting that "decent women and straight men...". If it has been an "or" rather than an "and" it might not have been something I'd notice. As you've said it wasn't your intention then I understand what you mean however you would still be judging a persons character by their appearance - it may or may not be often a reliable metric to judge by but it's still a substitution for a more difficult question of how to evaluate them in a more comprehensive sense.

PMKeates said:
While 'actual' homosexuality is probably not on the rise, practicising homosexuality is. In developed cultures with low birth rates, this will doom their civilisations.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that homosexuality will be the cause of civilisations being doomed? I'd argue that it's almost an irrelevance, low birth rates tend to occur as civilisations become more advanced and the pressures to have children become less but I don't think it's because more people are getting it on with the same sex.

However even if we were to allow that it were the case and homosexuals who would previously have been "forced" into procreation are no longer in such relationships then I remain to be convinced that the potential for the civilisation to die is a worse alternative than families being created because people have to deny their sexuality.
 
asim18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Two points to nicely dismAntle your argument and not get into the tedious details.

Child bearing back in the day (pre Victorian and even early Victorian times) was low teens as life expectancy was low. People would have a good few sprigs by early twenties. Perhaps we went through a phase of the average age getting higher but it becoming lower is no abnormality.

Secondly homosexuality was a known phenomena among the times with single sex schools were popular. Talking post 1850, in fact homosexuality has always been around and just because it is now mainstream does not make it deviant or more likely to effect children. Only thing it does is make people more willing to "come out" which is not a bad thing.

Ridiculous OP is about fifty years out of date. Though it is Asim, perhaps you should just use your GAT and drive by all these foul deviants?
 
Woden said:
Why would it? Did your mum and dad not teach you about the birds and the bees?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the fact that the vast majority of gay couples never have children remains.
semi-pro waster said:
Are you suggesting that homosexuality will be the cause of civilisations being doomed? I'd argue that it's almost an irrelevance, low birth rates tend to occur as civilisations become more advanced and the pressures to have children become less but I don't think it's because more people are getting it on with the same sex.

However even if we were to allow that it were the case and homosexuals who would previously have been "forced" into procreation are no longer in such relationships then I remain to be convinced that the potential for the civilisation to die is a worse alternative than families being created because people have to deny their sexuality.
Click to expand...
Low birth rates are contributed to by homosexuals not being 'forced' by societal pressures to have families. Having the majority of our children spawning from the loins of the poor and uneducated is also not helping our nation grow. Eventually we'll all be either gay or poor, and civilisation will be crumble.
 
Last edited:
PMKeates said:
While 'actual' homosexuality is probably not on the rise, practicising homosexuality is. In developed cultures with low birth rates, this will doom their civilisations.
Click to expand...

Its going to have very little effect... WW1 and WW2 wiped out a substantial portion of young males from an entire generation and we've still got a growing population. Having a minority become active and open homosexuals doesn't make much impact... they can still procreate as has been pointed out - lesbians still use sperm donors and have kids etc.. Modern technology, provision for care of the elderly and higher chances of an infant surviving to adulthood mean that we tend to have less kids on average these days anyway. If anything overpopulation is more of a concern as resources become more scarce.. and that really is more of an issue for developing nations.
 
Woden said:
But the vast majority of couples are not gay.
Click to expand...
When your birth rate is approaching zero, every little helps.
dowie said:
Its going to have very little effect... WW1 and WW2 wiped out a substantial portion of young males from an entire generation and we've still got a growing population. Having a minority become active and open homosexuals doesn't make much impact... they can still procreate as has been pointed out - lesbians still use sperm donors and have kids etc.. Modern technology, provision for care of the elderly and higher chances of an infant surviving to adulthood mean that we tend to have less kids on average these days anyway. If anything overpopulation is more of a concern as resources become more scarce.. and that really is more of an issue for developing nations.
Click to expand...
A growing population from what sources? Unfettered immigration from poor countries with little in the way of skills, the bottom of our society breeding away to pass the time? That isn't helpful. They are contributing to the ultimate decline.
 
I quite like the idea of girlies wearing nothing or not much at all but as for the homosex future... I don't even like it when my finger goes through the toilet paper.
 
PMKeates said:
When your birth rate is approaching zero, every little helps.
Click to expand...

The birthrate in the UK is a little under 2. That is perfectly sustainable, and would actually indicate that immigration needs to be controlled more in order to prevent overcrowding.

Even if the birth rate were zero, gay people are not sterile. Robert and Steven being in a committed relationship does not prevent them donating sperm to Sarah and Emma.
 
Why would we start to wear less, it wouldn't make sense. There is nothing to suggest that we ever would. Forget nudists, they are tapped...
 
Woden said:
The birthrate in the UK is a little under 2. That is perfectly sustainable, and would actually indicate that immigration needs to be controlled more in order to prevent overcrowding.

Even if the birth rate were zero, gay people are not sterile. Robert and Steven being in a committed relationship does not prevent them donating sperm to Sarah and Emma.
Click to expand...
Two is a pretty awful birth rate?

Considering the two is mostly made up of this, it's not good at all.

GzjeIZT.jpg.png
 
OP how old are you? Are you still a teenager?

Its been teh case for ages that young teenage girls idolise pretty/girly men, usually pop stars. but once they become women, they realise that manly men are where its at and their tastes change. Just as those girly teenage guys with the skinny jeans etc grow out of it and become normal guys..

The actions and tastes of teenagers dont carry through to adult life in the majority of cases. So you neednt worry about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom